Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that The Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Consolidated Fund Act, 1969.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE

Trade Figures

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will publish details, including the relevant computer programmes and flow charts, of the methods used each month to produce the seasonally adjusted trade figures from the recorded figures.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): As I explained in my reply to the hon. Member on 20th November last year, a revised article describing the seasonal adjustment methods will be published in due course.—[Vol. 773, c. 287.]

Mr. Macmillan: But will not the hon. Gentleman consider publishing the computer routine? Does he realise that his explanation, which we shall be grateful to see in due course, while covering manual methods and the general system, will not necessarily provide enough information to academics and others who wish to examine the figures more closely?

Mr. Dell: The computer routine, which is a technical tool used to fulfil certain principles of seasonal adjustment, would not greatly help in providing the public with information. Nevertheless, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to come again to

the Board of Trade to look at the computer routine, I shall be perfectly ready to let him see it.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will include each month in the published trade figures the recorded total for the 12 months up to and including the month in question.

Mr. Dell: No, Sir. I see no advantage to be gained from including this which, if needed, can be compiled from published figures. It would, however, be misleading because, as the Notes to the Accounts explain, amendments are incorporated in the "cumulative" totals and not in the monthly figures.

Mr. Macmillan: Will not the Minister consider publishing something which gives us a clearer indication of general trends as well as merely past trends, and will he accept the difficulty, as stated in the words of the O.E.C.D. Secretariat, of applying "very complex techniques in some cases to data which have already been smoothed by a moving average, without a full grasp of the implications of this"?

Mr. Dell: I am sorry that, unlike his father, the hon. Gentleman seems to be interested in last year's Bradshaw.

Sir C. Osborne: Who thought that one out for the Minister?

Mr. Dell: If recent trends are wanted, the best method to use is the three-month moving average based on seasonally adjusted figures. If one wants the longer-term trend, the best thing is what is published in the Press notice, that is, the Spencer 15-term weighted moving average, again based on the seasonally adjusted monthly figures.

G.E.C.-A.E.I.-English Electric (Redundant Workers)

Mr. Ogden: asked the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the new management of the combined General Electric Company-Associated Electrical Industries-English Electric Company about their proposals for the reorganisation and rationalisation of their operations; and what proposals he has put forward for the re-employment of men, women and plant made redundant by such reorganisation.

Mr. Heffer: asked the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the General Electric Company-English Electric Company about its proposed reorganisation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Julius Silverman: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the discussions he had with the management of the General Electric Company-English Electric Company before the recent announcement of their proposal to close down plants belonging to this group in Witton, Birmingham and elsewhere.

Mr. Orme: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the discussions he has had with the management of the combined General Electric Company-Associated Electrical Industries-English Electric Company about their proposals for reorganisation and the effect this will have on employment.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the discussions he has had with the management of General Electric Company-Associated Electrical Industries and English Electric regarding the implication of the merger between the companies for the employment situation.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): The company notified my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State before announcing its recent proposals for redundancies at certain of its works. I understand that it will shortly have further discussions with the trade unions. Depending on the timing and phasing of the redundancies, my right hon. Friend does not expect that any serious difficulties will arise in the redeployment of those affected. None of the four factories mentioned in the company's announcement is in a development area, but I shall, of course, watch closely the effect of any closures on our distribution of industry policy.
Disposal of surplus plant is a matter for the company.

Mr. Ogden: But what part did my right hon. Friend play in the decisions before they were announced? The Gov-

ernment will be blamed for any short-term redundancies, regardless of the need for rationalisation and reorganisation, because they have approved the merger. What we are asking my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to do is to take part in decisions, not merely receive decisions which are made by the companies.

Mr. Crosland: I take the point which my hon. Friend makes, but the redundancy problem is a matter for my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State. She can answer for herself, but I understand that she is satisfied that the company has fulfilled the pledge which it gave when the merger was approved to consult her about its rationalisation programmes in relation to redundancies.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend fully satisfied that there is sufficient emphasis on the part of the new merged firm on exports in certain directions? Is he aware that many of the workers believe that Mr. Weinstock is so mesmerised by the concept of a high margin of profit that certain aspects of the present production may be eliminated because the margin of profit is not so high, and this could well affect exports which are so important for the country's economy?

Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend raises a rather more general point than the one in the Questions. As regards exports, which are my concern, I can only say that we are in touch with the company about how it sees the development of its exports, and I would not as of now accept the implications of what he said.

Mr. Silverman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the plant in my constituency at Witton these are the second major redundancies announced within 12 months? This is bound to have an extremely serious effect on the local employment situation, especially on the sort of highly-skilled labour employed there, which may have difficulty in finding alternative employment. I know that; this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, but will my right hon. Friend persist in his approach to the company to see that full advantage is taken of the opportunities for diversification and export?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Long supplementary questions mean fewer Questions.

Mr. Crosland: I am aware of the position at Witton, which I have discussed with my hon. Friend. But I would emphasise that all these proposed closures—they are still only proposals, which are to be discussed with the trade unions-are in areas of low unemployment. I do not at present see the likelihood that in consequence of the closures we shall have a serious unemployment problem in any of these areas.

Mr. Orme: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the large private combines now being created do not have sufficient public accountability to both the nation and the workers within the industry concerned? What are his views about the speed at which mergers are developing, and about whether they necessarily serve the country and the rationalisation programme that he supports?

Mr. Crosland: The question of accountability raises very wide issues which it would be hard to discuss at Question Time. My hon. Friend will have noticed from certain recent actions I have taken that I do not share at least the current uncritical view that all mergers are good under all circumstances.

Mr. Davidson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most damaging things for the morale of workers is uncertainty about whether their firm is to close? In my constituency, and I am sure in many others, rumours are spreading that a particular factory will close. I know that this is not my right hon. Friend's direct responsibility, but could he bring what influence he has to bear on the management of the company at least to make an announcement and give some sort of certainty to workers in its employ?

Mr. Crosland: I take my hon. Friend's point, but I cannot take on the responsibilities of another Department. This is entirely the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary, and I know that she is well aware of the considerations my hon. Friend has just mentioned.

Sir C. Osborne: Why is the right hon. Gentleman's Department pushing mergers so hard generally throughout industry? What does he hope to achieve thereby?

Mr. Crosland: It does not seem the general opinion of Press commentators at any rate that my Department is engaged in pushing mergers as hard as it can on all sides.

British Motor Industry (Singapore)

Mr. Ogden: asked the President of the Board of Trade what official action is being taken to support the establishment, extension and operations of the British motor industry in Singapore.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): I have received no specific request from the British motor industry for official support for its operations in Singapore. The normal range of Government services under which advice and assistance are available for firms engaging in overseas activities is at its disposal.

Mr. Ogden: Does my hon. Friend always wait to receive requests? Does not she offer encouragement as well? In view of the offer of the Prime Minister of Singapore, extending a very hearty welcome to British industry, should not she make special efforts to encourage British industry to go to a place where we are welcome and there is great potential?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I accept my hon. Friend's strictures, although I was brought up to believe that ladies waited until they were asked. But I hope that it will be a matter for the commercial concern of the companies, who will be aware of the remarks of the Prime Minister of Singapore, and who, I hope, will actively follow them up.

Christmas Holiday Period

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, to avoid the present variations in industry observing the industrial breaks at Christmas and the New Year, he will initiate discussions with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry on the possibilities of having an eight-day national holiday week covering Christmas to New Year's Day.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The question of the duration of the Christmas holiday period is a matter for negotiation between the employees and the


employing firm. Any such negotiation should have the closest regard to the criteria of the incomes policy.

Mr. Roberts: Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that we as a party are in power to provide an expanded life and expanded luxury for workers—[Interruption.]—the anti-worker party is on the opposite side of the House—and that the gesture of a mid-winter holiday would be rewarded by an increase in productivity which would more than offset any days lost?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's views on what would lead to a rise in productivity, but I am sure he will accept that this is a matter that as yet must be decided by individual firms.

Mr. Emery: Will the hon. Lady, after dismissing the humour of the last supplementary question, consider whether it would not be more appropriate for her Department to try to do everything to encourage British people, whether management or workers, to take fewer unofficial holidays and increase the general productivity of industry?

Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this country, in spite of the sort of publicity various hon. Members insist on giving it, has a very good record in the number of days lost through strikes. It is not only up to individual workers but to management to see what they can do about productivity levels.

Industrial Development (Bromsgrove)

Mr. Dance: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the dependence of the Bromsgrove area on the motor trade, he will consider issuing industrial development certificates to encourage alternative light industry to the district.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Unemployment in Bromsgrove is fortunately very low and there are more unfilled vacancies than unemployed. While I take full account of local circumstances, I must continue to look critically at I.D.C. applications there, particularly from firms outside the area.

Mr. Dance: Is the hon. Lady aware that representatives of the trades council

saw me recently and expressed great concern about the industry having so many eggs in one basket? If there were a recession in the motor industry, there would be very high unemployment.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I take the hon. Gentleman's point that obviously one does not wish to have no diversification in an area, but he will be delighted to know that in the three years from January, 1966 nine I.D.C.s were issued for the Bromsgrove employment exchange area for a total of 104,000 sq. ft. Only one application was refused.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will my hon. Friend consider this suggestion on a quid pro quo basis? For example, if major sections of the motor manufacturing industry could be transferred to South Wales we would be prepared to transfer some of our new light industries to the Bromsgrove district.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that we are doing everything we can to move industries out to the development areas. One can hardly be content with a situation where 4·1 per cent. is still the unemployment figure in the development areas. If there were some way of organising such a quid pro quo as my hon. Friend suggests, I should be delighted to hear about it.

World Trade

Mr. Tom Boardman: asked the President of the Board of Trade how the rate of growth of world trade in 1968 compared with the rate of growth of British exports on an equivalent basis during the same period; what is his estimate of the likely growth in world trade in 1969; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crosland: The relevant comparison is for exports of manufactured goods. In terms of volume, British exports of manufactures in 1968 were 14½ per cent. greater than in 1967, while world exports of manufactures are provisionally estimated to have increased by something over 14 per cent. The latest figures indicate that we are now securing a larger share of this increase. While I expect world trade to grow rather less fast in 1969, I confidently expect a strong growth this year in British exports.

Mr. Boardman: Whilst I pay tribute to the efforts of British industry in achieving these exports, may I ask to what extent the right hon. Gentleman thinks that they are attributable to the growth of world trade? What are the probable consequences if the forecasts of a down-turn in world trade in 1969 turn out to be true?

Mr. Crosland: I must correct the hon. Gentleman on one point. Nobody expects a down-turn in world trade. What we expect is merely a rather slower rate of increase than occurred last year. I think that that was a slip of the tongue by the hon. Gentleman.
As to the explanation of these matters, we must remember that the British share of exports of world manufactures has been consistently falling for the past decade and a half. Last year, for the first time, we began to hold our own. Next year, when the full advantage of devaluation makes itself felt, I have no doubt that we shall for the first time probably for 20 years increase our share of world exports and manufactures.

Mr. Higgins: Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that the full effect of devaluation will take place only next year? To what extent does he think that the price-cost advantage of devaluation has already been eroded in relative terms?

Mr. Crosland: I expect the full effects to be felt only next year because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in the case of many heavy engineering goods, aircraft and ships there is a very long time lag between order and delivery—in the case of ships probably two to three years. That is why the full effects will not make themselves felt until 1969.

Sir K. Joseph: Not 1970?

Mr. Crosland: In the case of ships and aircraft it will often be 1970 also.
As to the erosion, I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman suggested in the latter part of his supplementary question.

Industrial Development Certificates

Mr. Derek Page: asked the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he is giving to revising the system of

allocation of industrial development certificates.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The I.D.C. control is reviewed from time to time as circumstances require.

Mr. Page: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Report of the East Anglian Regional Council confirmed up to the hilt the miserably low earnings in Norfolk and, therefore, the vital need to get more industry there? Will my hon. Friend use her good offices to ensure that inquiries at an early stage, before I.D.C. applications, are channelled towards that area?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I accept my hon. Friend's worries about Norfolk. I am sure that he realises that we consider I.D.C. applications very sympathetically, for North Norfolk particularly. In 1968 I.D.C.s were issued for 4·7 million sq. ft. We refused only three. We shall do all we can to channel inquiries in that direction.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: What is the view of the hon. Lady's Department on the finding of the C.B.I.'s survey that the very restrictive attitude to I.D.C.s in the developed parts of the country may actually be hampering the expansion and regeneration of the under-developed parts of the country?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I totally reject that view. It is frequently based, not on objective surveys, but on subjective opinions. We should try to emphasise that there is a continuing propaganda campaign building up in some more over-populated areas to say that this is a highly restrictive policy, which is not true. We are allowing firms which carry out modernisation schemes to go ahead in the South-East and in the Midlands. It is very important that people should realise that what we are doing in the development areas is just not important to those areas: it is important to British industry as a whole.

Exports

Mr. Derek Page: asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the increased opportunities for British exporters in the light of the effect of the recent increase in world sugar prices on the purchasing power of sugar producing countries.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It would be difficult to make a separate estimate for this one factor among the many which influence the level of world trade.

Mr. Page: Does not the fact that Britain has signed the new agreement, whereas the Common Market countries have not, give us a moral right to expect a large slice of the extra trade which will accrue from this agreement? Will my hon. Friend do everything she can to draw the attention of British exporters to the fact that these sales will not fall into their lap and that they will have to go out and sell in places like Jamaica and Cuba?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not accept that we have a moral right to expect anybody to trade with us. It is about time British industry learned that it has got to sell all over the world.

Textile Industry

Mr. Barnett: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will set up an inquiry into the proposed takeover of English Calico Limited by Courtaulds Limited, and into the eventual structure of the textile industry as a whole; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his policy regarding the proposed merger between Courtaulds and English Calico.

Mr. Peyton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he intends to refer the bid made by Courtaulds for English Calico to the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. Crosland: As I announced in reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) on 6th February, Courtaulds has agreed at my request to withdraw its current proposal to bid for English Calico. I shall examine the future structure of the industry in the light of the forthcoming Productivity and Efficiency Study and in close consultation with the industry and the Textile Council. In particular, I shall have the advice, not only of the Chairman of the Textile Council, but also of the Chairman of the I.R.C.—[Vol. 777, c. 167–8.1

Mr. Barnett: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on not allowing the industry's

future to be decided in an arbitrary fashion. However, is there not a need for further rationalisation of the industry? Is it not a fact that the Textile Council, by the very nature of its membership, is not really fitted for this type of examination? Would it not be better to have an inquiry other than a private Departmental one, the results of which could later be published so that we could all consider them and debate them fully in the House?

Mr. Crosland: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that further rationalisation is necessary. On the other hand, I do not agree with him that we need still one more outside independent study. This industry has been endlessly studied and endlessly reported on; and now that we know the facts it is a matter of making up our minds.

Mr. Peyton: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the right place to decide upon rationalisation is in the Board of Trade. Does he not think that in this confusion which we are all getting into, with the welter of monopolies and mergers which are taking place, it would be much better if the matter were reviewed under a procedure similar to the American anti-trust laws, and the matter could then be heard by a court which was independent and these very important matters would not be decided by the say-so of officials or Ministers?

Mr. Crosland: The main difficulty about doing that is that we do not have the American anti-trust laws. If we were to have a court of the kind that has been suggested, it would involve elaborate legislation and the court could not possibly exist until a year or two years had elapsed. I personally—I am sure that the industry will fully agree with me here—am not prepared to accept that further degree of delay.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: When the President speaks about the inquiry, is he referring to the inquiry that has been going on for some time by the Textile Council? If so, when does he expect the report? If not, is there a new inquiry as a result of the bid that has recently been rejected by the Board of Trade?

Mr. Crosland: There is, on the one hand, as the House well knows, the Textile Council's Productivity and Efficiency Study, which I daily expect


to receive. There is, on the other hand, what I am now proposing in the light of that study and other reports on the industry. I am now proposing to ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to lead a team, which will consist of officials from interested Departments, which will have access to the Textile Council and its staff, and which will draw on the advice of the Chairman of the I.R.C. and any other outside advice which may prove to be necessary, to make recommendations on further rationalisation in the light of the Council's study.

Sir K. Joseph: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that if the results of this private Departmental and relatively academic inquiry are not acceptable to industry he will have to introduce legislation?

Mr. Crosland: This will certainly not be an academic inquiry. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, may, for all I know, have academic qualities, but he also has plenty of non-academic qualities. We intend this to be a very realistic and commercially orientated study. As to what will happen if the industry does not agree with the conclusions we reach, I think we had better wait and see what happens.

Pension Funds (Trustees)

Mr. Barnett: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will initiate legislation preventing directors being trustees of their own company's employees' pension funds.

Mr. Dell: I will consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Barnett: Is it not wrong for directors to use their powers as trustees of workers' pension funds when mergers are taking place to take decisions which will affect the interest of those workers and when, by the very nature of things, the directors are clearly not able to take an objective view? Should not some action be taken by the Board of Trade in this connection?

Mr. Dell: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, legislation would be required to achieve that, but we shall certainly consider whether it is right to take the action he recommends in the context of further companies legislation.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Would it not be reasonable to exclude the employees as well as the directors of the firms in question?

Mr. Dell: Directors are in a special position, because there are possible conflicts of interest in such take-over situations.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in most cases a very good job is done for workers' pension funds by directors and employees? Does he also realise that when workers are members of an investment panel they are often very careful to select companies which will not be taken over?

Mr. Dell: I entirely accept that in general pension funds are very well administered. Nevertheless, there may be a problem when the whole or a substantial part of a pension fund is invested in the employees' own company, thus increasing the risk to which the employees are exposed.

Exports and Import Saving

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade what deficit in United Kingdom balance of payments, excluding capital account and related only to current account including invisibles and re-exports, occurred in 1968, compared with 1967 and 1966; what improvement in exports occurred in 1968 and how the policy of imports substitution helped trade balances; and what further measures he proposes for export promotion and imports diminution during 1969.

Mr. Crosland: The full current account balance of payments figures for 1968 will not be available until March. Exports in 1968 were 23 per cent. higher in sterling terms than in 1967, and 14 per cent. higher in volume. This strong increase in exports, together with import saving, contributed to the steady improvement in the current balance during the course of 1968. As to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer which I gave him on 6th November last.—[Vol. 772, c. 864–5.]

Sir G. Nabarro: As there is this strong rise in exports, what evidence has the right hon. Gentleman that in 1969 we shall not have an even stronger rise in


imports, notwithstanding the discouraging effect of the import deposit scheme which so far appears to be nugatory?

Mr. Crosland: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have said more than once, it is too early to judge the likely effect of the import deposit scheme. I think that it is absolutely clear from present trends that the increase in exports generally in 1969 will significantly and substantially exceed any possible increase in imports.

Investment

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the trend of the investment intentions in the distributive and service trades in 1969; and how these compare generally with the investment intentions of manufacturing industry.

Mr. Hall-Davis: asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the level of manufacturing industry's investment in 1969; and how this compares with the actual level in 1968.

Mr. Hordern: asked the President of the Board of Trade what he estimates will be the increase in the level of manufacturing investment during 1969.

Mr. Dell: The information available was published in the Board of Trade Journal of 24th January, 1969.

Mr. Jenkin: Would the Minister of State be prepared to reconsider the classification of one industry now regarded as a service industry, namely, the scrap reclamation industry which has an enormous potential for import saving? Would it not be a good idea for something to be done to encourage the investment, expansion, and prosperity of this industory in the national interest?

Mr. Dell: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to the classification of the industry in the investment intentions forecast made by the Board of Trade or for investment grants. I dealt with the subject of investment grants in answer to the hon. Gentleman last month, and I have nothing to add to what I then said.

Mr. Hall-Davis: Will the Minister of State discuss with his right hon. Friend

and the Chancellor of the Exchequer the making of a comprehensive policy statement by the Government about their attitude towards stimulating investment, as every hoped for increase in industrial investment appears to be frustrated before it occurs?

Mr. Dell: We have every expectation of an increase in industrial investment this year. There are already substantial incentives to manufacturing investment which compare favourably with those available anywhere else in the world.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the President of the Board of Trade what has been the value of investment overseas by British manufacturers, and of investment by overseas manufacturers in the United Kingdom in 1968, respectively; how this trend differs from previous years; and what he estimates will be the position in 1969.

Mr. Dell: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which was given to him yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

Mr. Osborn: Further, as successive measures introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer over the years have made such a poor return on investment at home inevitable, and in view of the Reddaway Report, what steps will the Minister take to encourage British investment overseas? Secondly, is he encouraging American investment in this country?

Mr. Dell: On the latter part of the supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman will know that inward investment in this country has been very high this year. On the first part, he will, again, know that there are certain criteria against which overseas investment is judged. If it meets those criteria it is permitted. Nevertheless, as the Reddaway Report shows, overseas investment can mean a serious cost to the balance of payments which outweighs its benefits.

Inter-Continental Pharmaceuticals (Bletchley) Limited

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will order an investigation under the powers conferred by section 165 of the Companies Act, 1948, into the affairs


of Inter-Continental Pharmaceuticals (Bletchley) Limited and allied and associated companies.

Mr. Dell: On 13th January the Board of Trade under Section 109 of the Companies Act, 1967, required the production of the books and papers of Inter-Continental Pharmaceuticals (Bletchley) Ltd. As a result of preliminary inquiries, the Board on 29th January appointed inspectors under Section 165(6) of the Companies Act, 1948, to investigate the affairs of the company and of Curtis & Co. Ltd.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is not this very late in the day? Has not the bird flown? Will not the Minister accept that reputable pharmaceutical companies gave the Board of Trade information about this concern two years ago and more? Why has the Board of Trade been so dilatory?

Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as a result of Section 109 of the 1967 Act, the Board of Trade now has powers which are important in this regard and which we did not have before the Act was passed.

Mr. Ogden: May I thank my hon. Friend for having set up this inquiry, as I asked him to do three weeks ago? Will he bear in mind that the legislation available to the Board of Trade and other Ministries is totally inadequate to meet this kind of extraordinary situation? Can he give an assurance that there will be consultation with the Ministry of Social Security and other Ministries?

Mr. Dell: I think that my hon. Friend will find that Section 109 and Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1967, have considerably improved the situation in this respect.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman had this power in 1967. Why has it taken so long to do anything when, according to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), information was available two years ago?

Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Act came into force at the end of 1967 or early 1968. Action has now been taken to pursue this investigation.

Cotton Textiles (Exports)

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade what negotiations he is conducting with overseas countries concerning the renewal of their quotas for textile goods after the expiry of the present arrangements.

Mr. Crosland: None, Sir; the Cotton Textiles Agreement does not expire until 30th September, 1970. The G.A.T.T. Cotton Textiles Committee will be meeting this autumn to decide whether or not to extend the Agreement for a further period, and I shall meanwhile be considering the Government's policy in the light of the Textile Council's Productivity and Efficiency Study.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: When we last discussed it, the President of the Board of Trade accepted that there was some urgency in the matter. Is it not surprising, therefore, that his Answer today shows that he is not conducting any negotiations? Is not the right hon. Gentleman in danger of getting up against the buffers of time unless he gets on with it?

Mr. Crosland: We must all be wary of coming up against the buffers of time. I have repeatedly said that I would not consider a future long-term policy for imports until I had had the productivity and efficiency study. We shall have this within a matter of days. Of course we must pay close attention to the timetable, but the present quota system under which the industry is operating does not run out until the end of 970, and so we still have two years to consider the matter.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the cotton textile industry would have more confidence in the review which he has mentioned if it knew what sort of market it had to cater for after 1970? Should it not at least appear to everybody that the review is taking that into consideration?

Mr. Crosland: There is not the slightest doubt that the productivity and efficiency study will contain a long and thorough analysis of the present place of imports in the industry and the rôle they should play in future.

Printing and Publishing Firms (Census of Production Forms)

Mr. Sharples: asked the President of the Board of Trade to how many general printing and publishing firms census of production forms were sent on 1st January, 1969, on behalf of the Business Statistics Office.

Mr. Dell: 11,742 forms were issued on the 1st January, 1969, to firms in the general printing and publishing industry.

Mr. Sharples: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this form contains more than a hundred detailed questions requiring such vital information as the number of jam pot covers and bottle caps sold during;: he previous 12 months? What estimate has been made of the number of hours of non-productive work required in small firms to produce these answers? Is not this an example of Bureaucracy gone stark staring mad?

Mr. Dell: Of the number of forms I mentioned nearly 8,000 were simplified questionnaires sent to establishments with fewer than 25 persons employed. The forms have been sent out as part of the 1968 census of production. There have been censuses of production in this country at intervals since 1907. They provide both the Government and industry with essential information which industry needs as much as the Government.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Would my hon. Friend not agree that these forms were prepared by qualified statisticians who presumably evaluated the questions to be asked? Would he not further agree that a great number of man hours and a lot of unnecessary labour was due to a high proportion of these forms not being returned forthwith? Can he tell the House what proportion of these forms were returned?

Mr. Dell: The forms have only recently been issued and we would not expect a significant proportion of them to be returned yet. This is essential information, and I would have thought it the common view of the House that it is important to have statistical information for the use of industry, comparable with that available anywhere else in the world.

Mr. Higgins: As the hon. Gentleman has been talking about last year's Bradshaw,

can he tell us when this census will be available for industry?

Mr. Dell: I hope that it will be available in the course of the next few years. I entirely agree that there is a very considerable delay in the production of cen suses of production. The 1963 census of production was very badly delayed. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are now introducing a new and improved system for this purpose, which will combine quarterly returns with annual returns, and make information very much more speedily available than has been the case in the past.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Would it not be better if the Minister allowed industry to decide what kind of information it wishes to collect, through its own associations, instead of the Government coming in?

Mr. Dell: We consult with the industries concerned before we put out these census forms. In the case of the general printing and publishing firms, we had consultations with the industry, as we always do.

Hotels

Mr. Blaker: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the Government's latest estimate of the likely shortage of hotel beds in Great Britain in 1970.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): I regret that there is insufficient information about hotels in this country to provide a basis for a meaningful estimate.

Mr. Blaker: Is it not a fact that the British Travel Association is able to make such an estimate? If the Government think that their hotel grants and loan scheme will be effective in increasing hotel accommodation, why have they waited until now to introduce it? Would it not have been better if it had been put in effect a year ago when the previous loan scheme expired?

Mr. Rodgers: There is not a great deal of enthusiasm on the other side of the House for collecting certain sorts of information. If there was, I might agree that we need more than we have. Some estimates have been made, but I do not think that they are sure enough to be


a basis for policy making. As for the proposals, we are introducing a Bill which will be published sooner rather than later. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find it a good one.

Mr. Maclennan: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Highlands and Islands Development Board has carried out some extremely useful work in this connection? Will he confirm that, in considering the future areas of responsibility of the Board and the Scottish Tourist Board, the Highlands Board already has a useful record which should be built upon?

Mr. Rodgers: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's remarks.

Mr. Corfield: Is the Minister really telling us that he proposes to allow B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. to invest very large sums of money in hotels without knowing what the need is?

Mr. Rodgers: This is certainly not what I said. There is a need for more hotel accommodation, which is not disputed on either side of the House. I hope that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. will be able to make a full contribution to the need for newer accommodation and thus play their part in encouraging the tourist industry.

Imports and Gross National Product

Mr. Blaker: asked the President of the Board of Trade what were the factors causing the 8 per cent. increase over 1967 in the 1968 volume of imports compared with the 4 per cent. increase in the gross national product between the same years.

Mr. Crosland: Imports generally rise faster than the gross national product, particularly in years of above average growth like 1968. There were also exceptional imports last year of diamonds and silver.

Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of the United States, Germany, Japan and the Netherlands the volume of their imports over the 10 years up till 1967 increased faster than the volume of our own imports? Does this not suggest that the solution to our problem is to be found not so much in cutting down imports, but rather on the export side?

Mr. Crosland: I would broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman. What is peculiar about our balance of trade, compared with other advanced industrial countries is, as he rightly says, the failure of exports to rise as fast, not the fact that imports have risen unduly fast.

Mr. Barnett: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the document, reported to be circulating round his Department, about the reason why imports have been increasing steadily over recent years? Would he care to publish the document for the benefit of the public?

Mr. Crosland: A great number of admirable and carefully thought-out documents circulate round the Board of Trade at all times. In so far as there is any document, or might be a number of documents, on this subject the Answer which I have given this afternoon crisply summarises their arguments.

Mr. Peyton: Will the right hon. Gentleman be particularly careful about the use he makes of the term "gross national product", as this is one of the terms by which the Prime Minister is now affectionately known?

Monopolies Commission

Mr. Emery: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to publish a White Paper on Government policy on monopolies and mergers.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he now has to take steps to alter the powers and the composition of the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. Crosland: As I told the House in November, I am reviewing the working of the Monopolies Commission. Meanwhile I have decided to take administrative steps to strengthen both the membership and the staff of the Commission, and to improve the arrangements for deciding on references to it. I shall consider whether to make a further statement when the review is complete.—[Vol. 772, c. 88.]

Mr. Emery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Answer is quite unsatisfactory? Hon. Members and the


Press realise that a draft paper, an interdepartmental inquiry, has been in existence in his Department for a number of month;;? Is it not right that the House should have sight of that document, even if it is only placed in the Library if he will not publish it? We should like to know not only the Department's views but the right hon. Gentleman's views on strengthening the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. Crosland: I have already given my views on the strengthening of the Monopolies Commission at this stage in the review which we are undertaking. As to draft documents circulating in the Board of Trade or elsewhere, if we were to publish them, or put them all in the Library—every draft document circulating in Whitehall—the hon. Member would have no time for anything but reading.

Sir K. Joseph: Do not the Government need to make up their own mind on these importait matters and to publish their views? Why was the Minister, if he was to refer Unilever and Allied Breweries to the Monopolies Commission, so indecisive as to wait eight weeks before doing so?

Mr. Crosland: On the first point, I entirely agree that the Government and the Opposition and each one of us must make up our minds on what is an extraordinarily intricate subject. The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me express my view briefly at a dinner at the Leeds Chamber of Commerce, which he was good enough to attend, only two weeks ago. As to Unilever and Allied Breweries, this was the first reference made to the Commission under the size criterion of the 1965 Act. In terms of size it was also by far the largest reference ever made to the Commission. I thought that this raised a number of exceptionally serious problems which I was determined to take time to consider before giving a view one way or the other.

Balance of Trade

Mr. Emery: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the balance of visible overseas trade for November, 1968, excluding figures relating to imports of United States military

aircraft; what was the balance including such figures; and what has been the total payment in respect of United States military aircraft in the last available 12 months.

Mr. Dell: The visible trade deficit in November, 1968, was £16 million, excluding both imports of United States military aircraft and exports of British engines for them; the trade balance is not calculated including these transactions, but imports in November were valued at £41 million. Total payments in the 12 months ended December for United States military aircraft were £109 million.

Mr. Emery: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that by excluding our payments for military aircraft and equipment we are giving a very different view about the balance of payment figures to many outside this country, and that when, as is often the case, they wake up to this differential of something like £110 million overall a year, it makes the situation very much worse for the Government?

Mr. Dell: It is necessary to distinguish visible trade from the balance of payments. The payments account in respect of these aircraft appears in the balance of payments figures published every three months in Economic Trends. There is therefore no concealment and no lack of information.

Mr. Shinwell: Can my hon. Friend say whether the £109 million expenditure on United States military aircraft is contained under the Ministry of Defence or some other Department?

Mr. Dell: This is certainly part of this Government's military expenditure.

Liquidations

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of compulsory and voluntary liquidations of private and public companies, respectively, and in total in 1968; and if he will tabulate how these numbers compare with those for previous years, indicating the value of the assets involved.

Mr. Dell: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Osborn: Is it not a fact that Government measures have caused considerable stress among the medium companies because of the credit squeeze? What steps will the Minister take to keep medium and small businesses in business and operating?

Mr. Dell: I do not think that that is a reasonable interpretation of the figures which the hon. Gentleman will see when they are published. For some years, including from 1959, the figures have been showing a rising trend. That is due to a number of factors, partly the fact that there are a larger number of companies registered. But most of the voluntary liquidations are owners' liquidations and do not imply that the firm concerned was insolvent.

Following are the figures:


THE NUMBERS OF COMPULSORY AND VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATIONS COMMENCING IN ENGLAND AND WALES IN EACH OF THE PAST TEN YEARS WERE:—




Compulsory Liquidations


Year

Public Companies
Private Companies
Total


1959
…
7
393
400


1960
…
—
525
525


1961
…
—
612
612


1962
…
4
714
718


1963
…
9
720
729


1964
…
8
716
724


1965
…
12
793
805


1966
…
5
929
934


1967
…
17
1,213
1,230


1968
…
8
1,109*
1,117*






Voluntary Liquidations


Year

Public Companies
Private Companies
Total


1959
…
128
3,330
3,458


1960
…
147
3,580
3,727


1961
…
22
4,055
4,077


1962
…
73
4,118
4,191


1963
…
129
4,326
4,455


1964
…
142
4,292
4,434


1965
…
159
5,710
5,869


1966
…
179
10,333
10,512


1967
…
142
7,001
7,143


1968
…
111
8,080
8,191


* Provisional.

Statistics of the total annual value of assets involved in liquidations are not available.

United States Companies

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the average yield per cent. which United States companies obtain on their original capital investment in Great Britain after five years and after 10 years.

Mr. Dell: The only information I have relates to 1965, when the average yield, after United Kingdom taxation, on the net assets of British affiliates of United States companies established in 1956 and in 1961 was 12½ per cent. and 2 per cent. respectively. These figures are based on small numbers and are not necessarily representative.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is commonplace for American companies to draw 100 per cent. profit per annum on their original investment? Does not this make clear that the Government's policy of restricting credit for British investment in British industry is highly disadvantageous?

Mr. Dell: As the hon. Gentleman knows from the current Board of Trade forecasts, we expect that investment in this country will rise during the current year. I must emphasise that the figures which I have given are based on a very small sample.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the total annual cost in dollars to British-registered companies of their obligations to United States companies for know-how agreements, royalties and patent rights.

Mr. Dell: About 135 million dollars in 1967.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Does the Minister feel that the growth of American proprietary rights over British industry is contributing favourably to our balance of payments in the long run?

Mr. Dell: These royalties are in respect of information which is valuable to industry in this country. Forty per cent. of it is in respect of British subsidiaries of American companies. But the hon. Gentleman will know that, taking this country's royalty income and payments as a whole, in 1966, which is the latest year for which figures are available. we were in surplus, not in deficit.

Textiles (Productivity and Efficiency Study)

Mr. Biffen: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take on the recent report of the


Monopolies Commission on cellulosic man-made fibres.

Mr. Hordern: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the report of the Monopolies Commission on the supply of man-made cellulosic fibre.

Mr. Peyton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has now arrived at a decision on the recommendations made by the Monopolies Commission in March, 1968, concerning Courtaulds' rayon interests.

Mr. David Mitchell: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now announce his decision on the report of the Monopolies Commission on the supply of man-made cellulosic fibres.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will reject the recommendations made by the Monopolies Commission in March, 1968, concerning Courtaulds' rayon interests.

Mr. Crosland: As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) on 6th February, I expect to receive the Textile Council's Productivity and Efficiency Study in the course of this month. It would be wrong to take major policy decisions about the industry, including decisions on the Monopolies Commission's report on cellulosic fibres, until I have completed a thorough examination of the industry's structure in the light of the Textile Council's study,—[Vol. 777, c. 167–8.]

Mr. Bitten: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is general mystification that Sir Frank Kearton has so abruptly and arbitrarily fallen from grace? Would he therefore bear in mind the necessity for the Board of Trade to express a clear view at the earliest possible moment on its policy on reorganisation in the textile industry and which horse it will back, Courtaulds or I.C.I.?

Mr. Crosland: The first part of the supplementary question is the most pure and mischievous nonsense. The Board of Trade is neither pro nor anti Courtaulds, I.C.I., Viyella or any other firm in the industry, as the hon. Gentle-

man must know, and as Sir Frank Kearton knows perfectly well. In the study which we shall carry out we shall start from a position of neutrality.

Mr. Peyton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is something odd about the Monopolies Commission's report being followed by such a deep and total silence on behalf of his Department lasting almost a year? I wish to say nothing unpleasant about Sir Frank Kearton, but he seems to have had a hypnotic and anaesthetising influence on the Department. Something should be said fairly soon.

Mr. Crosland: The relations between Sir Frank Kearton and my Department seem to bear two quite different interpretations by two hon. Members opposite. The reason why I have not taken the view expressed in the Monopolies Commission's Report and why I have waited for the Textile Council's study is perfectly simple. I do not propose to take any more piecemeal decisions about the future of this industry. In the past few years, far too many unthought-out and piecemeal decisions have been taken about it, and I do not propose to repeat that mistake.

Mr. Barnett: As the Textile Council reported as long ago as 1967 in its annual report that this study was being made, why is the Minister now expecting something different to come out of it, particularly bearing in mind that the members of the Committee which is doing the study are all active directors of companies which would be affected by such rationalisation?

Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend is not correct. The membership of the Textile Council also includes trade union representatives and independent members, who are quite firm and independent enough to make their own independent views known if they happen to disagree with the owners.

Sir Frank Pearson: Will the Minister give an undertaking that when he receives the study from the Textile Council the House will have an opportunity to debate it?

Mr. Crosland: The hon. Member knows that I can give no undertakings about debates, which are a matter for the Leader of the House. All I can do.


which I now do, is to undertake that as soon as we can publish it we shall, so that the House can read it.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order. In view of the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon), on Question No. 32, and his reference to a later Question on Edinburgh Airport, Mr. Speaker, have you had a request from the Minister to answer Questions Nos. 45 and 46?

Mr. Speaker: The point of Order might have been raised a little later, but I have had no such request.

Sir C. Osborne: Will the Minister promise that at the earliest opportunity he will publish the Report, and will he say how soon that will be?

Mr. Crosland: I have already said that I expect to receive it in a matter of days. I have not checked on how long publication will take, but as soon as I can publish it, I will do so.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that Courtaulds appear to be floating a large loan in Germany, and cannot something be done to persuade patriotic businessmen in Britain to put up money instead of going to Germany for it?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir, I am not aware of the fact which my hon. Friend mentioned. The Chairman of Courtaulds is in my view an extremely patriotic industrialist who has done great services to the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION

London Airport (Duty-Free Shop)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the President of the Board of Trade, (1) why he has declined to refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the fact that Fortes duty-free shop buys gin at 5s. 2½d. per bottle and sells it at 16s. 6d. per bottle, a profit of 217 per cent.;

(2) why he has declined to refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the fact that Fortes duty-free shop at Heathrow buys whisky at 9s. 2d. per

bottle and sells at 22s. 6d. per bottle, a profit of 145 per cent.

Mr. William Rodgers: These goods are sold only to people about to leave the United Kingdom. They are, in effect, therefore, exports and do not influence the domestic cost of living.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is not the whole principle of the National Board for Prices and Incomes to be obeyed by the British Airports Authority like everybody else? Is not the Minister of State aware that the Authority charges exorbitant prices for the concessions and then compels the concessionaires to charge equally exorbitant prices to the public?

Mr. Rodgers: This arrangement ensures that goods are cheaper to the consumer than they would be in the ordinary shops. It is an arrangement valuable for exports. It is rewarding to the public purse. It is one which seems acceptable to private enterprise. It seems fair enough to me.

Mr. Shinwell: Why should people who are leaving Britain for a short absence have this privilege while those who stay here have no such privilege? Could my hon. Friend arrange to have a duty-free shop in the House of Commons?

Mr. Rodgers: My wish is certainly to extend rather than restrict privileges, but that is not a matter for my Department.

Mr. Bessell: Does the Minister of State consider it reasonable that the Authority should insist upon high prices in this manner? Is he aware that these prices compare very unfavourably with those at other airports throughout the world? Does he not consider that the whole matter is a disgrace?

Mr. Rodgers: I know the hon. Gentleman's feelings about the British Airports Authority and the persistent way in which he has been pursuing certain matters which he has previously believed to be wrong. I do not think that this is a disgrace. It is a proper management matter, and the present arrangement is beneficial to a number of people, including the public at large and all those who have an interest in the Authority as a public enterprise.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: On a point of order. May I give notice that I regretfully will have to raise this matter on the Adjournment, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply?

Independent Airlines

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements have now been made for British European Airways and Independent Airlines to take over routes formerly operated by Transglobe and British Eagle, now withdrawn from service; and whether he will make a statement concerning future policy for the operation of independent airlines.

Mr. William Rodgers: Exemptions were granted last November to enable certain of British Eagle's domestic routes to be served pending decisions by the Air Transport Licensing Board on the applications now before them. Transglobe did not operate scheduled services. Future policy must await the Edwards report.

Sir G. Nabarro: Notwithstanding the unfortunate occurrence with these two independent airlines, will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he does not propose that his policies in future will be soured by this occurrence and that there will be no bias against the development of independent aviation?

Mr. Rodgers: They certainly will not be soured. There is no bias. We shall make our decisions as rapidly as possible after we have received the Edwards report.

Mr. Fortescue: What is the latest date by which the Government expect to receive the report of the Edwards Committee, and how soon after its receipt will it be published?

Mr. Rodgers: We still expect to have it by the end of March and we shall publish it as soon as possible after that date.

Glasgow Airport

Mr. Rankin: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) in view of the effect on air traffic control of lengthening the main runway at Glasgow Airport, what consideration he is giving to plans for this development;

(2) If he will ensure that Glasgow Airport will be as well equipped in respect of

air traffic control facilities as airports of the same type in the rest of the country.

Mr. William Rodgers: No formal proposals for extending this runway have been received but we are ready to deal with the situation if, as a result of such an extension, the instrument landing system has to be moved. Glasgow is well equipped with navigational facilities and will continue to be so.

Mr. Rankin: Does my hon. Friend's Answer mean that Glasgow Corporation will have the fullest power to develop its airport to meet the needs of Glasgow citizens equivalent to the powers which Manchester, Newcastle and Liverpool have in developing their municipal airports?

Mr. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland had a very satisfactory meeting with Glasgow Corporation last Friday. Certainly we want to see the development of this airport consistent with my right hon. Friend's statement of 22nd February last year which took into account all the facilities available in Scotland.

Mr. Dalyell: What is the latest position concerning the urgent negotiations with Edinburgh Airport?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order to anticipate another Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a strong opinion in the West of Scotland that too much money has already been spent on Glasgow Airport? There are two big airports within a short distance of one another. Prestwick is not closed by fog as Glasgow Airport is. Will my hon. Friend be very careful before spending any more public money on Glasgow Airport?

Mr. Rodgers: Prestwick is also an admirable airport. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has had discussions with the Ayr County Council about its future, too.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. In view of that intervention, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Later—

Mr. Dalyell: In view of the urgency of the negotiations on Edinburgh Airport, have you, Mr. Speaker, had any request for an answer to Questions Nos. 45 and 46?

Mr. Speaker: I have had no such request.

Aberdeen Airport

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he will announce his plans for the future ownership of Aberdeen Airport; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement about plans for Dyce Airport.

Mr. William Rodgers: There is no immediate prospect of the Board of Trade relinquishing the ownership of Aberdeen airport, although our policy in the longer term is to relinquish control of such few civil aerodromes as remain in our charge.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In the meantime, can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that services at that airport will not deteriorate but will be developed and maintained? If the City of Aberdeen is not prepared to take over the airport on its own, is he willing to consider approaches from a consortium of local authorities in that area to keep control of the airport on a local basis?

Mr. Rodgers: The answer to both parts of the supplementary question is "Yes".

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Can the hon. Gentleman say why productivity agreements which are now under discussion with the men involved at the airport were not suggested before the recent strikes took place?

Mr. Rodgers: That raises a much larger issue about which there is a later Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Minister realise that, in view of its geographical position in relation to, not only the rest of this island, but the Continent, Aberdeen airport is essential for the maintenance of trade, industry, commerce and employment for the whole of North-East

Scotland? Will he ensure that it receives the utmost attention?

Mr. Rodgers: I have the greatest sympathy with my hon. and learned Friend's forceful view.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I am seeking your guidance. I know that you have no control over Ministerial replies, but in a supplementary question to the Minister of State, Board of Trade, I asked whether the £109 million expenditure on military aircraft in the United States would appear in the Defence Estimates or in the Estimates of some other Department. The Minister replied that this was Government expenditure. Is it possible for the President of the Board of Trade to amplify the statement and to remove my mystification?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman answered his point of order at the beginning. It is not for Mr. Speaker to decide in what way a Minister will answer a Question; indeed, he need not answer.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order. The Minister of State declined to answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) on the very proper grounds that there were further Questions on the matter. In view of his Answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East, Mr. Speaker, may I again, through you, ask that the Minister of State may be able to comment on this urgent matter?

Mr. Speaker: A repetition of a request that a Minister should answer a Question that he has given no indication that he wishes to answer does not make him answer it.

PRIVATE BILLS (OBJECTIONS)

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, you may remember that a few days ago I drew your attention to the fact that when an objection was made to a Private Bill it was not recorded in HANSARD. I made an objection to the Brighton Marina Bill on Tuesday and there is no reference to it in HANSARD.
You may remember, Mr. Speaker, with respect, that when I made that point you said something to the effect that it was not customary to enter such objections in HANSARD because a number of hon. Members had objected to a number of Bills.
With respect, Mr. Speaker, an objection of that kind is a public matter, of importance to the House, to the promoters of the Bill and to the objectors.
I made that objection on Monday, it is not recorded in HANSARD, and when I previously raised this point of order you said words to the effect that it should be referred to the appropriate Committee. I am sorry to detain the House, but surely it is a matter of importance that such an objection should be on record in the appropriate issue of HANSARD.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman is an experienced Parliamentarian. I hope that he would not ask Mr. Speaker to rule on the same point again and again. I ruled when he raised this point of order last Tuesday week. I hope that he will not raise it every time the Brighton Marina Bill comes before the House on Tuesdays. The position is exactly as I ruled a week ago.

BILLS PRESENTED

DEVELOPMENT OF TOURISM

Bill to provide for the establishment of a British Tourist Authority and Tourist Boards for Scotland and Wales with responsibility for promoting the development of tourism to and within Great Britain; to provide for the giving of financial assistance out of public funds for the provision of new hotels and the extension, alteration and improvement of existing hotels; to enable provision to be made for the registration of hotels and other establishments at which sleeping accommodation is provided by way of trade or business; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr Anthony Crosland; supported by Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. William Ross, Mr. Anthony Greenwood, Mr. George Thomas, and Mr. William Rodgers; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS

Bill to amend the law relating to children and young persons; and for purposes

connected therewith, presented by Mr. James Callaghan; supported by Mr. William Ross, the Attorney-General and Mr. Elystan Morgan; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (REV. N. SITHOLE)

Mr. Judd: On a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the conviction of the Rev. N. Sithole by the courts of the illegal régime in Rhodesia and his sentence to six years' imprisonment.
I submit that this is specific because it refers to one man, the Rev. N. Sithole, who is a key and vital political leader in Rhodesia. It is important because the result of this trial and the verdict following the trial may have important implications for the future of race relations within Rhodesia, without Southern Africa and within the world, and may call into question the competence of the Rhodesian courts to deal with a matter of this kind.
I further submit that the matter is urgent because it is a verdict and sentence which have been announced today.
I have already said that I believe this verdict may call into question the competence of the illegal régime and its judicial system but, further, it seems possible, on the reports which are so far available, that the case may have disturbing implications in the possible intimidation of witnesses by the illegal régime and the fact that the main witness throughout the case, Mr. X, has not yet been identified.
One of the most important points brought forward by the prosecution as incriminating evidence has been reference to Mr. Sithole's denunciation of the terms put forward as a result of the talks in "Fearless". This denunciation is not limited to the lips of Mr. Sithole. It is something that has been—

Mr. Speaker: With respect, the hon. Gentleman cannot debate the subject on which he is seeking an emergency debate.

Mr. Judd: Then may I conclude by saying that the matter is urgent and deserving of immediate attention by the House, because, as a result of the case, Her Majesty's Government should consider immediately reviewing their commitment to the "Fearless" proposals. It calls into question the Government's commitment to those proposals because it makes it more difficult than ever to get a genuine test of opinion within Rhodesia.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the conviction of the Rev. N. Sithole by the courts of the illegal regime in Rhodesia and his sentence to six years' imprisonment.
As the House knows, under the revised Standing Order No. 9 Mr. Speaker is directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reasons for his decision.
I have listened carefully to the representations which the hon. Gentleman has made, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. James Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before making a final decision on this matter, would you consider one fact which seems to have emerged from the case—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am asking Mr. Speaker, If he rules me out of order, I will accept his Ruling.
Mr. Sithole is a citizen of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth and he has been tried by an illegal court. Does that not bring the matter within the direct responsibility of Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Everyone in the House has the greatest respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but it is not usual, when Mr. Speaker has ruled against a Standing Order No. 9 Motion, to question his Ruling. I have taken every factor into consideration.

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENT (No. 2) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: On a point of order, Mr. Irving. I wish to raise a matter concerning the selection of Amendments. It questions, first, the exclusion of certain Amendments and, second, the joining together of others, some of which have no relation to each other.
Probably better than anyone else in the Committee, Mr. Irving, you know that the rights of hon. Members depend very much on the kinds of Amendments selected for debate. Although that is true of any Committee stage, it is much more true when we are dealing with an extremely important constitutional Measure such as the one before us today. Any point that does not receive due consideration in Commitee does not receive it when the legislation is framed and appears on the Statute Book, to be obeyed for many years to come. It is of crucial importance for all Amendments to be selected so that they may be tested in debate and by the Committee's vote.
I submit that, on previous occasions, we have taken a much less restrictive view of Amendments, even when dealing with matters less important than the ones before us today. To quote a recent example, when we considered the Finance Bill last year, about 60 Amendments were tabled to one Schedule, of which no fewer than 29 tabled by right hon. and hon. Members opposite were selected. The point at issue then was a very minor matter of life assurance and the qualifications for it. If we can be so generous on a relatively unimportant matter, surely it is essential that we should be allowed to discuss a greater number of the Amendments which have been tabled to this very important Bill.

The Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. The Standing Orders give complete discretion to the Chair in the selection of Amendments. If the hon. Gentleman or any


other hon. Member has private submissions to make to me, I will be glad to listen to them, but I cannot allow a debate on the selection.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a further point of order, Mr. Irving. I have looked through the list, and I see that Amendment No. 163—in Clause 2, page 2, line 38, at end add:
(5) Nothing in this Act shall affect the right of any Prince of the Blood Royal, being a Peer, to receive as heretofore a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords—
has been selected and grouped together with a number of others. However, that Amendment is in complete contradiction to the others in the group. It seems to me that it ought to be taken separately, or that there should be a separate vote on it. Some of the other Amendments in that group ask for the elimination of the hereditary peer from the House of Lords—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising much the same point about which I have ruled—

Mr. Heffer: Oh, no—

The Chairman: Order. I have said that if any hon. Member wishes to make submissions to me about separate Divisions, or about any other matter concerning the selection of Amendments, I will be glad to hear them, but I cannot accept them in Committee.

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order. How can we make representations to you, unless we do it at this stage? We are beginning this debate immediately, and Amendment No. 163 is included in the first group for consideration. At what other point in time can I or anyone else raise this question?

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Irving. Is it not in order for the Committee to be suspended, so that submissions can be made to you?

The Chairman: No. I cannot accept that.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Irving. Would you at least consider this? Apart from Amendment No. 2, perhaps, most of these Amendments are not con-

sequential, and there will be no opportunity to consider them at a later stage. Would you agree to taking separate votes on each of the Amendments?

The Chairman: I cannot give a blanket undertaking to accept a submission of that kind.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Irving. I submit that the discretion of the Chair, upon which you have just said that you rely, should not be exercised without reason. This Amendment shows that the Clause contradicts itself—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is questioning the selection. I cannot allow him to do that.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: On a further point of order, Mr. Irving. Would you rule whether the list of selected Amendments which some of us have is exhaustive of the whole Committee stage, or does it merely take us to the end of Clause 3?

The Chairman: The selection, which I should remind hon. Members is provisional, is up to the end of Clause 3.

Mr. George Younger: On a further point of order, Mr. Irving. Would you advise the Committee about the way in which the Preamble will be treated in considering the Bill? As the Bill is drafted, the Preamble is of more than usual importance. I understand that the correct procedure is that, normally, the Preamble to a Bill is amended only if an Amendment to the Bill made subsequently makes it automatically necessary to alter the Preamble. On the Notice Paper there appear quite a large number of proposed Amendments to the Preamble which I am sure it would be the wish of the Committee to consider. What will be the method of doing that?

The Chairman: I accept the hon. Gentleman's submission about the complexity of the Bill. The procedure is that the Preamble will be considered at the end.

Mr. Younger: Further to that point of order. With respect, that is not quite my point. Will it be in order, therefore, when we come to the Preamble—assuming that the Committee agrees—to amend


the Preamble in respect of the Amendments specifically tabled and not merely in respect of Amendments to the re mainder of the Bill which may have been agreed in the meantime?

The Chairman: That is a difficult point on which to ask the Chair for guidance. If the substance of the Bill, as amended, requires some amendment of the Preamle, technically it is possible to amend it.

Mr. Younger: I do not wish to waste the time of the Committee, but could you not consider this point now? Where a large part of the intention of the Bill, for understandable reasons, is in the Preamble, it is not satisfactory that the ability to amend the Preamble should be restricted to Amendments made in other parts of the Bill. Will it be in order to move a substantive Amendment to the Preamble, when the time comes, and have it considered like any other Amendment to any other part of the Bill?

The Chairman: The scope of the Bill is determined not by the Preamble, but by the Clauses. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to amend the Preamble, he must put down a substantive Motion to that effect now.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Further to that point of order. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that the Prime Minister, introducing Second Reading, laid rather more special emphasis on the Preamble than is usual in the case either of a Long Title or of a Preamble. It was to have a mystic middle effect irrespective of the body of the Bill. That being so, surely the rules of order are somewhat different in this case from what they are normally.
For that reason, I support my hon. Friend's submission that we should not be restricted in our amendment to the Preamble, when we get to it in a few weeks' time, by what has in the meantime been included or not included in the Bill, but that we should be allowed to amend the Preamble as we wish because it has this independent life indicated by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Michael Foot: On that same point of order. I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and the hon. and

learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). It appears that this is a unique situation facing the Committee and it is a unique form of Preamble in the sense that some of the main matters discussed on Second Reading will appear only in discussion on the Preamble. It is possible that many matters that were fully debated on Second Reading would be excluded altogether unless we could have a separate approach to the Preamble.
Therefore, may I suggest, Mr. Irvine, that at a later point in the proceedings, either today or when we renew discussion on the Bill, you make to the Committee a special and considered statement on the Preamble? I believe that it would greatly assist us. Indeed, it might speed up some of the preliminary discussions, because the view of many hon. Members is that one of the major debates which will have to take place will be on the Preamble in some form or other, and we would like to be clear about the form that it will take.

The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for being so helpful. I will consider making such a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Is this strictly accurate? Surely the rule is not that Amendments cannot be made to the Preamble. Is not the rule that Amendments must not be made to the Preamble which are inconsistent with the body of the Bill? This is something different from all the points which have been made so far.

The Chairman: This is perfectly correct. As I indicated, in general an Amendment to the Preamble must be determined by Amendments put down to the Bill, because the scope of the Bill is determined by the Clauses which eventually determine the Preamble. I will seek to cover this matter in my statement.

Mr. Nigel Birch: Would it not solve the problem if we altered the order of the proceedings and debated Amendments to the Preamble first? It is open to the Committee—it is often done on the Finance Bill—to take certain Clauses out of order. Would it be in order, if I moved an Amendment to the Preamble, for the Committee to consider that Amendment to the Preamble before considering the others?

The Chairman: That is contrary to the practice of the Committee. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to deal with it in the way suggested. I will endeavour to help the Committee as much as I can.

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order. To return to Amendment No. 163, may I ask whether you will consider having a separate vote on that Amendment?

The Chairman: I cannot deal with it in Committee. If the hon. Member cares to make a private submission to me, I will listen with great attention.

Mr. Heffer: Why do I need to make a private submission when I am making a public one? There is no point in it. I am asking now whether we might have a separate vote on Amendment No. 163. Possibly the Chair does not wish to reply at this stage, but may we, at least before the end of the debate, know whether we can have a separate vote on Amendment No. 163 and on other Amendments which are not consequential to each other?

The Chairman: I have already answered that point of order. Incidentally, I have not had a submission from either of the hon. Members whose names appear above the Amendment on the Notice Paper. I cannot discuss the question of selection or matters of that kind in Committee.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: As one of the sponsors of Amendment No. 163, I am sure that we will be delighted to have a vote when we come to it. But may I refer back to what you, Mr. Irving, said about the Preamble? The Preamble raises certain important matters of principle that affect the whole Bill. Therefore, I should think it more logical to discuss the Preamble before coming to some of the individual Clauses. When you make your statement, will you bear in mind that the Preamble really goes to the whole root of the Bill before we discuss the Clauses?

The Chairman: I will endeavour to consider the convenience of the Committee within the Standing Orders. I shall certainly bear that in mind.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Mr. Irving, you said that it is the practice not to have the Preamble first. But

surely that is a bad practice. The logic of the English language is that the Preamble comes first. Can we not make it logical on this occasion, whatever the practice has been in the past?

The Chairman: The Chair, whether in Committee or in the House, is guided by the practice, conventions and usages laid down in Erskine May. One does not abandon the usual practices very easily. But I bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I think that we are in some difficulty when you, Mr. Irving, say that you will take private representations on points of order which have been raised. It is absolutely essential that the Committee should know in what way it is to proceed as soon as possible. It would be a great mistake to start our proceedings in any great detail unless we know what your final views will be after these private representations have been made.
I wonder, therefore, whether you will reconsider the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) that the Committee should be adjourned until you have made up your mind finally on these matters and the private representations have been made or vacate the Chair and allow another Chairman to take over until you have received these private representations.

The Chairman: I will seek my own convenience in that respect, if necessary. In pursuance of the provisional selection which is upon the Notice Paper, we are about to start on what is likely to be a lengthy discussion on Amendment No. 1 and the other Amendments selected with it. I will certainly seek to hear any representations that are made to me about separate Divisions or other matters as quickly as possible, and certainly before the end of this debate, so it should not deprive any Member of having proper consideration given to what he wishes in this respect.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: Further to the point on the first group of Amendments. Is it not the familiar practice of the Committee that where Amendments which have a slightly different purpose are grouped a separate vote is


accorded? Surely, without in any way questioning in public the selection, it is possible for the Chair to announce now that there will be a separate vote, if Members wish, on particular Amendments.

The Chairman: The Chair is in great difficulty. I have ruled that the Chair does not discuss its selection in Committee. If I pursue that point I am, in fact, doing exactly what I ruled I ought not to do. I should, nevertheless, like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the rule that he is seeking to submit to the Committee has been pursued, because Amendment No. 1 is for debate and Division and Amendment No. 2, which seeks to cover another major group of Amendments, is also down for Division. This covers the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. I will, of course, hear any other submissions, but I hope that the Committee will now be able to proceed with the debate.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I think that you have been extremely patient, Mr. Irving. The whole Committee, I am sure, feels very sorry that you have been placed in this position. But I understood you to say just now that you would receive representations, and I gathered that you might vacate the Chair and take representations while the debate was taking place. That will place some of us in a difficult position, because we wish to be here to take part in the debate. If the Committee were to adjourn for 30 minutes while representations were made, we would know where we were going.

4.0 p.m.

The Chairman: I understand the anxiety of the hon. Member, but we have a large number of Amendments before us, and I cannot believe that we shall proceed very quickly with these during the next hour. I shall seek to hear representations, and I feel that the convenience of the Committee will be served if we proceed in that way.

Mr. Barnett: Mr. Barnett rose—

The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will not ask me to rule on a point of order on which I have already ruled.

Mr. Barnett: No, Mr. Irving. I thought you said that because Amendment No. 2 was being taken with Amendment No. 1 that tended to deal with the matter. Amendment No. 2 is consequential to Amendment No. 1. That is the only Amendment in this group which is consequential. All the others are quite different.

The Chairman: It is often the practice of the Chair to select even Amendments of substance for discussion, but not for a Division. This practice stretches back a long time, and, therefore, the Chair is not doing anything but following the usual practice by selecting in this way

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I wonder, Mr. Irving, whether you will help us a little further by reminding us in what sense this selection is provisional, and to what provisos it is subject.

On the question of the Preamble, I wonder whether you can say whether at some stage you will entertain a Motion that the Preamble stand part of the Bill? Shall we be able to have a Division on that?

The Chairman: The selection is provisional. It is a selection made under the powers given to the Chairman by the Standing Orders, and can be altered at any time. It is marked "provisional" at the top of the list of selections.
It will be possible to have a Division on the Preamble if the hon. Gentleman seeks to have that.

Mr. Birch: In my experience this is unique. We are told that the Bill is based on a White Paper. Certain parts of the White Paper are in the Bill. The only reference to other parts of the White Paper is in the Preamble. I have never known a situation like this, where a Preamble dealt with matters which were not in the Bill. This seems to be unique, and it ought to be dealt with in a unique way. If you can give us any precedent for the similar conduct of a Bill, I shall be grateful to hear it. I do not believe that there is any such precedent.

The Chairman: I cannot pursue this matter now. I have undertaken to consider the matter urgently, and to give what guidance I can to the Committee. I hope that the Committee will now be able to proceed to the Amendments.

Mr. Sheldon: Mr. Irving, you said earlier that you would be prepared to receive submissions. What I wish to say relates to Amendment No. 104, in page 2, line 23, leave out 'received such a writ' and insert
'attended the House of Lords',
and to Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 24, leave out 'the date of the commencement of this Act' and insert '31st October 1967 '. These Amendments have not been selected. They cover points of substance on which no debate will be possible.
You said that you would be prepared to receive submissions. It so happens that after the discussion on the first group of Amendments we shall be past that part of the Bill on which these Amendments arise. I find it difficult to understand when you can receive submissions during the Committee stage of the Bill. I further ask for a general ruling on the kind of Amendments which you will not be selecting on this Bill, where we are considering vital constitutional changes.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is asking me to deal with a point of order with which I have already dealt. I do not think that any Chairman is required, nor do the Standing Orders require him, to explain his selection, or the principles on which it is based. I think that the hon. Member will have an opportunity to make such representations as he wishes, and I hope that he will now allow the debate to go forward.

Mr. Sheldon: Mr. Sheldon rose—

The Chairman: Does the hon. Member wish to pursue a point of order with which I have already dealt?

Mr. Sheldon: Mr. Irving, you said earlier that you would be prepared to receive submissions. Will those submissions have to be made before it is taken, or after?

The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will make his submission before it is taken, inasmuch as it is practicable to do so in relation to the first Amendment. I have sought to give what help and protection I can to the hon. Member, by saying that I shall determine my view on any submissions which are made before we come to the end of the discussion on the first group of

Amendments, and therefore before the Committee is required to vote.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Mr. Irving, you have been extremely patient, but I wish to follow up a request made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling). Amendment No. 163, which is grouped so strangely, cannot be regarded as a provisional selection, because, as you have insisted that we get on with it, it ceases to be provisional the moment it is opened. It therefore becomes definitive, and it is necessary to make one's objections now, unfortunately in public. We cannot make our submissions in private because there is no time so to do.
Amendment No. 163 deals with Princes of the Blood Royal, and is different from Amendment No. 1, on which the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is so keen, but which I regard as very bad. I think that we ought to be allowed to have a separate Division on the Princes of the Blood Royal, because this is quite a different matter. Although it may be too late to prevent it being discussed with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, what is the objection to you telling us now that on this totally separate Amendment we can have a separate Division?

The Chairman: I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern about that Amendment, and its importance, but it is open to any hon. Member to make submissions to me. It may be that there are other hon. Members who wish to make submissions about other Amendments included in this group. I should, therefore, rather not make a decision now. I have indicated that I shall seek to protect the hon. and learned Member's interests about a Division by indicating this before that time arrives.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: As the Amendment to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) has referred stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), I wonder whether I might say that I am content for my Amendment to be discussed in the earlier debate, because it affects Princes of the Blood Royal as hereditary peers and members of the other place.
I am content with that, but if, as a result of the submissions made to you, you decide in your wisdom that there should be a separate debate, and a separate Division on this Amendment, will it be in order for the matter to be discussed again in a further debate? If not, it seems that what my hon. and learned Friend has said is right, that the matter has been pre-judged.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Further to that point of order. To be quite frank, and with due respect, I say that we seem to be getting into rather a muddle. I should like to propose that the proceedings be adjourned for half an hour, to give you time to consider this very important matter of the separation of Amendment No. 163 from Amendment No. 1 and the whole Preamble.
I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is moving a dilatory Motion, which I cannot accept and which I am not required to accept, under the Standing Orders.
In reply to the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), may I say that Amendment No. 163 has been selected, and that the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) is right. Once the debate has started it is no longer a provisional selection, it is a definitive selection, and cannot be changed.
What I undertook to consider if representations are made to me is whether, having debated it, there can be a Division on it. I certainly could not give any undertakings on this, because it would be open to any hon. Member who has an Amendment in this group to make a similar submission. Therefore, I must reserve my position on the question of consideration. But I should certainly consider this, if the hon. and learned Gentleman made a submission. This is the common practice of the House. Mr. English.

Mr. Onslow: Would it not be better to find some Amendments on which there is no dispute—

The Chairman: Order. I called Mr. English.

Mr. Michael English: Could you advise us, Mr. Irving, whether Amendment No. 163 is in order at all? Amendment No. 163 includes a term "Prince of the Blood Royal", which is quite unknown to English law. There are such things as royal dukes, which includes the Duke of Edinburgh, but the term "Prince of the Blood Royal" would exclude that estimable individual from having this right at all. Therefore, is the Amendment in order at all?

The Chairman: If the Amendment were out of order, it would not be selected for debate.

Mr. Onslow: Might it not meet the point on these first Amendments which we are not yet debating if we shelved them for the time being and found a later Amendment, on which there is no dispute, and debated that for a while while this wrangle is being sorted out behind the Chair?

The Chairman: I cannot accept that ingenious suggestion.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury) rose—

The Chairman: Order. I have ruled and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue this matter.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order. If the Committee were to decide to reject Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, this would inevitably mean that there could be no vote on Amendment No. 163, concerning Princes of the Royal Blood. These are totally separate points. Whether there is a right to vote for peers who inherit peerages by succession is a different matter from whether princes of the royal blood should be allowed to vote or not and it would preclude the Committee from considering the latter point if we disposed of the Amendments in the first group. Could they not be separated?

The Chairman: Whether they are separated is a matter for the Chair and any submissions made to me about this matter. As for the point that, if Amendment No. 1 were decided and fell, this would automatically knock out Amendment No. 163, that is not so.

Mr. Jopling: On a point of order. It would be a great convenience to many hon. Members if you, Mr. Irving, could say where and when it would be possible to make private submissions. Would you prefer hon. Members to approach you in the Chair during this immediate debate? There is some confusion about when these private submissions might be made.

The Chairman: I would make arrangements at the earliest possible moment to hear submissions which have to be made to me.
In view of the time which has elapsed, I will indicate my selection. With Amendment No. 1, which we are about to discuss, we will consider also Amendments No. 2, in Clause 1, page 2, line 15, leave out "by succession"; No. 3, in Clause 1, page 2, line 20, leave out subsection (2); No. 4, in Clause 1, page 2, line 22, leave out "by succession"; No. 157, in Clause 1, page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (3); No. 158, in Clause 1, page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (4); No. 103, Clause 1, in page 2, line 34, leave out "within one year after the commencement of this Act".
No. 163, in Clause 2, page 2, line 38, at end add:
(5) Nothing in this Act shall affect the right of any Prince of the Blood Royal, being a Peer, to receive as heretofore a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords.
No. 13, in Clause 2, page 2, line 43, leave out "peers of first creation" and insert "life peers"; No. 19, in Clause 3, page 3, line 14, leave out "peer of first creation" and insert "life peer";
New Clause 2—
The power of the Crown to create hereditary peerages conveying rights of membership of the House of Lords is hereby abolished.
and new Clause 6—
One month after the coming into force of this Act, no holder by succession of a hereditary peerage, whether in the peerage of England, Scotland, Great Britain or the United Kingdom shall have the right to sit in the reformed House of Lords by virtue of his hereditary title.

An Hon. Member: Too fast.

The Chairman: The hon. Member will find the list of selection in the No Lobby.

Clause 1

EXCLUSION OF PEERS BY SUCCESSION

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Sheldon: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 14, leave out:
Except as provided by subsection (2) below ".
This Amendment seeks to ensure that the holders by succession of hereditary peerages, whether in the peerage of England, Scotland, Great Britain or the United Kingdom,
shall not in right of that peerage receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords in any Parliament summoned after the commencement of this Act.
A number of us, notably on this side, but many on the other side also, regard it as almost self-evident that there should be no rights to those by virtue of their birth. Not long ago, we tried—and were largely successful—to remove the stain which arose from illegitimate birth, and we have long accepted that birth by itself should offer no privileges and that only what the man or woman does throughout his long life should be a token of the esteem or the importance that he or she should be accorded in our public life and elsewhere.
What I seek to do by this Amendment is to question why successionist peers should have any advantage over anyone else in the United Kingdom. It is not easy to see what these individuals have to offer the country either in the advice they give or in the way they act having some sort of bearing upon their contribution in the House of Lords.
The hierarchy of birth, which was once a dominant feature in our national life as it was in so many other countries, has been diminishing and should diminish still further. This hierarchy was rooted both in the mysticism and the false analogies of very primitive societies who understood very well how certain agricultural products owed a great deal to those which were planted to yield the kind of produce required. They perceived that this relationship existed and transferred it rather too readily to human beings, who are subject to much more complex laws and much more to the laws of environmental change rather than purely the laws of heredity.
Therefore, over these long years, we have seen an excessive attachment to birth and the individual's background which slowly, as the ideas of democracy and equality grew throughout the country, became attached to the individual and the need to maintain the rights of the individual as stemming from his own personality and not that of those who produced him. But we know that it was not even as simple as that, that the laws and ideas of succession as well as the mythology of succession were not determined by one's parents or even one's grandparents. All too often, they were determined by what happened to one individual many hundreds of years before.
Although, in primitive societies, it might have been accepted that what happened several hundred years before to an ancestor had some contribution to make to that individual who came at the end of many generations, the most elementary reader of the popularised science books knows that a relationship as tenuous as this is something which we can for the most practical purposes entirely ignore, even if it were shown to be completely beneficial and had some ability to transmit these qualities throughout the generations. It has no such ability and even if it had, it would be too thin by the time it reached the present peers in the House of Lords.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: There is not only the transmission of qualities, but the question of the environment to which children are subject.

Mr. Sheldon: I agree that environment is now seen to be the most important determinant of our time. This is something to which we have started to pay, rather belatedly, more attention.
This mythology, which was responsible for the creation of the House of Lords and for so many other factors of medieval society, still finds its last roots in the Upper Chamber. It is this aspect with which the Amendment is concerned.
Leaving aside the question of advantage, it must be accepted that these people are well represented as a class or body. We recognise that Parliament should be a forum in which wide ranges of opinion may be expressed. We accept

the need for that, even when the range of opinion in question may happen to be a very narrow one. Every shade of opinion should find some sort of representation in Parliament.
We know, however, that the extent of the representation with which we are concerned needs to be very small indeed because the numbers concerned are very small. Despite this, an entire House is dedicated to this type of representation; and the Bill will exclude only a small number of those who should be excluded.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does the hon. Gentleman mean by that that he will support later Amendments designed to secure a limited representative body of hereditary peers in the Upper House?

Mr. Sheldon: I am thinking of the body of representation as a whole. The hon. Gentleman must bear that in mind when he uses the word "limited". It should be obvious that throughout the country—in industry, in the Upper Chamber as it will be reformed and in this Chamber—the representation of these people is already extraordinarily high. One might argue for that representation even in these other spheres to be reduced, but I will not go into that in detail now. We are not dealing with a problem of the under-representation of the aristocracy in Britain. This problem has never weighed heavily with me; not from the under-representation point of view.
The problem with which we are concerned is the direct opposite; the question of the over-representation of such people in all parts of our public life, and particularly in the so-called reformed House of Lords. I emphasise "reformed" in this context because such a reform is an insult to a word which I am proud to use on many occasions. I would call it a change, and a change for the worse. We are, therefore, dealing with a question of the over-representation of aristocracy in our public life, and, in particular, in the Upper Chamber.
An encouraging aspect of our economic life are the changes that are taking place in industry. The old succession of managers breeding sons and taking them into the business is altering. The whole


question of an automatic right to take responsibility for a company because of the advantage of birth has been called into question in recent years. At first, it was questioned. Now, the old succession theory is in considerable decay.
As a result of these trends, we are now seeing an understanding, even in quite small family companies, of the fact that birth is not enough and that industry needs the right people to manage, run and control its affairs. The sons, and particularly the elder sons, of business owners are finding opportunities outside those businesses. They are realising—or perhaps boards of directors area realising—the limitations which are imposed by management selection in the old way. That method of recruitment is falling into disrepute.

Mr. William Baxter: Would not my hon. Friend agree that considerable benefit has accrued from even that method of selection? The onus of proof is on him to show that that method has not been effective. After all, most of our great industries have been built on the simple basis of son following father. There is nothing unreasonable about this method of selection, as long as the son is of the necessary quality. Even in this House we find sons following fathers, brothers following brothers and sometimes a selection being made by a Prime Minister based not necessarily on ability but on relationship.

Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point which was certainly valid in the middle of the 19th century, when gifted sons followed their fathers. The next generation failed in this matter of succession. They failed so miserably that they left their industries to languish while they moved into the City to live more comfortable and lucrative lives. As long as the factory or mill owner lived near his industry, his establishment flourished. Living nearby, he had knowledge of the industry, as did his son. The next generation, however, did not live according to the same tradition. They moved to London and the City, away from the factory or mill, and were, therefore, responsible for so much that later proved to be wrong with the British industrial system.

Sir A. V. Harvey: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the matter on a broader

basis and considers, for example, agriculture, he will see that some of Britain's best large farms are run by the fifth and sixth generation of the same families and that these farms are run far better now than they were years ago, particularly as a result of the scientific training which farmers' sons now receive.

Mr. Sheldon: That, too, is an interesting point. I wish that I had time to deal with every aspect of the matter. I concede the importance of what the hon. Gentleman says in connection with agriculture, although there are no statistics in agriculture to reveal the true picture.
While I might be willing to accept that a number of farmers have raised their sons close to the soil and have given them an understanding of the land—have made them understand that it is necessary to put in as well as take out; this applies in all walks of life—I question whether that sort of relationship can be applied to large sections of industry generally.
While knowledge was passed from father to son in agriculture, that was not the case in industry. It was also not the case in connection with the House of Lords. We are, therefore, dealing with matters of a very different scale.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: Would the hon. Gentleman consider the position in a country like Saudi Arabia, in which all the Ministers are sons or brothers of the King and where the balance of payments position is much healthier than ours?

Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman raises some interesting points relating to multi-filial relationships of the kind that are indulged in in Saudi Arabia. The connection between father and son there is a little more tenuous than that to which we in this House are accustomed. I appreciate the point of his intervent, however, and while there may be some validity in it, I do not have time to go into it.
We are here dealing with the value that is attached to the relationship between ancestors and descendants ranging over a period of very many years. We are dealing with the amount of representation that is accorded the aristocracy, not only in Parliamentary affairs but in industry, although I agree that some important changes and improvements have been


made. Unfortunately, this representation is still not on the basis of merit; certainly not nearly to the extent that it should be. In other walks of life—the Church, the Army, and so on—nobody should argue that the kind of representation that exists is valid.
If the argument is that those who are in the House of Lords bring something to bear on the discussions which is not immediately available in the House of Commons, clearly we need there not those who happen to be able to look back many generations to our past glories, but more a cross-section and even people who do not come here to debate matters in this House.
4.30 p.m.
I have on the list of Amendments a new Clause suggesting that the House of Lords might be empowered to invite up to three individuals from outside that House to take part in their debates even though they are not Members. Such outsiders coming in with certain expertise in particular narrow areas of experience could bring a widening of interests and direct practical experience to bear in a way which we in this House are not able to do as much as perhaps we should because of the demands on our time. Because peers served the country at some distant date very well, usually in military fields, it is felt that their dependants—

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: Would not the hon. Member agree that a great many of them were chosen for their political services? Many members of the House of Lords or their fathers were distinguished Members of this House.

Mr. Sheldon: I accept that. The contribution of the Cecils is an obvious case. I question, however, whether experience at an Elizabethan court, even if it were transmitted through 300 or 400 years and still survived could be of relevance to the House of Lords now. This kind of background is not particularly relevant and it is over-represented. What we have seen in the life peerages is a move—I do not think that it is much more—towards bringing in levels of ability more in keeping with those which we see in the country today.

Mr. Gower: Many of us would accept many of his arguments about the hereditary

principle as such, but would the hon. Member not agree that a House composed solely of nominated people could be even more objectionable?

Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Member will find that I am in total agreement with that, as I shall seek to show on other matters which, if I discussed them now, I should probably involve myself in questions of order. The point we are discussing now is not whether a House of Lords consisting of nominated peers is objectionable, but whether peers of succession should join with them. It is this which I find very bad and to which I strongly object.
During recent years we have seen a number of father-son relationships in the aristocracy which perhaps in the debate to follow may be referred to by hon. Members. The difficulty about all these things is that in the nature of such a discussion brilliance of this kind will tend to be more commonly known. The case of the father who did not have a brilliant son is all too common. We may not know whether the son has any particular brilliance or gifts. Those in a distinguished family impinge themselves on our consciousness in a way which I suspect hon. Members opposite might tend to recall with considerable affection, since they have this attitude towards the aristocracy. The only way to look at this objectively and dispassionately is by looking at the position of the members of families and the numbers of successes, but we have no such way of looking at families.
The point I wish to emphasise is that of the all-too-frequent case of a great man not being followed by particularly brilliant children. We recall all too well people who tried political careers because they had certain advantages. Certain great men with political advantages had children who wished to enjoy such advantages, but were not so successful. In all walks of life a parent knowledgeable in a profession or occupation or having a particular interest is in a very advantageous position to influence the future of his son.
No doubt we all in our limited, perhaps modest, ways try to assist in this situation. Yet we also know that given this sort of initial advantage the success which might attend the son, other things


being equal, is greater than if that attention were not so given. If this is so it is not surprising that we see Members of the House of Lords being able to rear families whereby a certain level of ability is shown just because they have that kind of background.
Perhaps this is something of the background to which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) drew attention in connection with agriculture and the relationship between parents and children in that industry. They enjoy these advantages and perhaps when we praise families all we are doing is praising this kind of connection which obviously exists and must exist, but as a statistical principle we are unable to gauge its extent. We have also seen the ability of those who were called "Born to rule".
This kind of ability was much praised before the war and especially in the 19th century when certain political families were said—although I do not believe it—very largely to control the destinies of the country. That was something which they used to arrogate to themselves, this power which I do not think they possessed. They used to arrogate the power because they had a great interest. It is only natural that out of this came certain individuals who made their mark both in this House and in the Upper Chamber.
The ability of certain individuals, fostered as it was from early years in contact with their parents, gave them a very great advantage compared with the individual whose life was spent in the back streets say of Manchester. He realised to the full extent the real problems of the world only in his twenties or thirties. Lacking the advantage of the possessor of great understanding enjoyed by the great families of those days, he suffered the disadvantages of birth and the struggle to earn a living and finally of coming to this House—as some did—rather late in life. They made their particular mark, it was grounded in the very experience which this House should have cherished and understood perhaps more on some occasions than it did. The advantage of the aristocracy was that it had young people with very great advantages in life. The trouble today is that without such advantages, to which everyone is prepared readily to defer, on many

occasions one has to make one's mark entirely by one's own ability.
The kind of society that we are, in which we respect a man only when he reaches 40 or 50, makes it difficult for someone to achieve things which were more possible for the young aristocracy in the past and are so to a limited extent even today. Having the advantages of success, having the advantages of wealth, and, most important of all, in many cases having the advantages of responsibility at an early age, they were able to develop the great characteristics which are needed to produce a leader in society.
They had so much thrust upon them at an early age in a way that does not apply to people who do not have the advantages of birth. It is a feeling in all countries that we do not pick out some of the great talents and advance them as we should if we are to develop the kind of leadership that we need.

Mr. Ridley: To what extent does the hon. Gentleman think that this is a form of vocational training which has some use in the context in which he is talking?

Mr. Sheldon: I am not thinking in terms of vocational training in the House of Lords. I am thinking of bringing out people's latent abilities for the spheres, in particular, of industry and other aspects of national life. There can be no training for the House of Lords, unless it is life itself. One needs to have lived a life, to have lived it as fully as possible, and to have learned a number of important things about people and the world.
I believe that there are many present in the Chamber who consider that the advantages of aristocratic birth give the young an opportunity which is not easily attained in any other way. However, I believe that great progress has been made towards a conscious understanding of the need to select such individuals. A number of schemes have been initiated by enterprising firms. There have been projects like the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme, which is even more modest, but which perhaps covers an even wider aspect of national fife. Such schemes can make people more aware of their latent possibilities than their modesty might allow them to entertain.
Such an approach is needed today if we are to employ what is, after all, our


only valuable raw material, namely, the talents of our young people. The talents of the small number who sit in the House of Lords form only an infinitesimal part of the ocean of talent which the country has and which is not utilised to anything like the extent that it should be. If full use is to be made of our greatest natural resource, there must be a great extension of this type of approach to our young people.
The succession peers had certain qualities which marked themselves in the past. They had certain standards of behaviour which were emulated by others. We in Britain were perhaps rather more fortunate than people in many other countries, in that the standards which these people set, at least in some respects, were of some value and percolated through to the community at large.
As we approach the demise of the peers, let us spare one word of consolation for what they did. They were always realistic. One of their great characteristics was their astonishing realism and their ability to step back in the face of overpowering force which would otherwise have obliterated them, as it obliterated most of Europe's aristocracy.
Our aristocracy had the great advantage of having leaders who understood the way these forces worked; and, apart from disastrous errors of the kind which were perpetrated in 1910, they have always known at the crucial moment to what extent to yield, understanding that by so yielding they were holding on to far more ground than they could reasonably lay claim to.
4.45 p.m.
This realism has enabled the peers to remain almost into the 1970s. This is astonishing, in view of the ending of aristocracies throughout the whole world. The aristocracy is now to be found only in remote places—in places such as Saudi Arabia and Britain. It is found in such places still because some of the places where it still exists are under-developed and because in Britain it has been rather intelligent in making the greatest use of its power and understanding the limitations of its power.
This very advantage which the peers had, and this understanding of the political

system they developed, was, in its way, a disadvantage to the Lords. An important point to remember in any discussion on reform is that it is the successionist peers who set the style. It is those in possession at any one time that tend to set the pattern to which people who enter that society correspond. Some of it is highly anachronistic, but this is how it works.
We all know the case of the working-class son who becomes a doctor and begins to see himself as the descendant of the great medical authorities of the 17th and 18th centuries. He feels that he is not revered in the same way as they were—he has acquired their characteristics. Such a man complains about the problems of professional men, forgetting his past, though he should not forget it. This is found in all walks of life. People acquire the characteristics of the society they enter. It happens in the Lords even today.

Mr. Heffer: And in the House of Commons?

Mr. Sheldon: It is easier to overcome such difficulties here, for reasons which perhaps I will discuss with my hon. Friend later.
In the Lords, the life peers, once they get the feel of ermine on their cheek, or wherever it touches them, become part of the mythology of the aristocracy and try to emulate it. Britain has a tradition of slight change—we are always changing, but never by much. There is always somebody there to tell what has gone before. As a moderate, I wholly accept this and think it of great value that there should be this kind of transition.
For example, we should not get rid of the Tories all at once; there should be a lingering remnant of them for a time. We have seen this lingering remnant in the Lords, but the gradual approach has fewer advantages in the Lords because new entrants have been influenced by successionist peers and have adopted their standards. This is not wholly desirable, in view of what might have been expected from a reformed House of Lords taking in people of ability.
Although the successionist peers may not be large in number, the greatest influence which they have is the influence


of continuity whereby the new life peers and the nominated men are still expected to carry on—and very likely will in practice carry on—the traditions set by the successionist peers. Therefore, it is a question not just of numbers, but of the tone of the House of Lords largely set by the successionist peers.
Another aspect of the matter to which I draw attention is that at one time the peers felt that they as individuals really represented Britain. That belief persisted almost until the present century, the belief that this country was represented by the peers and that the working people, those who lived to make the whole thing work, were interested only in themselves. It was believed that there was a fundamental division between the peers who owned the land and felt that they had continuing interest in the country as a whole and the working classes who, so it was thought, had no such continuing interest but wished only to be fed, to be clothed and to look after themselves.
The task of the peers, as they themselves saw it, was to run the country and to manage the land, and also, if they were generous enough or far-seeing enough, to feed the masses and make sure that their interests were not wholly neglected. One had an interesting example of this in the attitude of Lord Raglan and Lord Lucan in the Crimean War. They regarded themselves as representatives of England, largely because of the Wellingtonian tradition that, if one wanted an absolutely safe Army, it had to be officered by those who really had something to lose.
It was reckoned in those patrician days that the people who had something to lose were those who held rights in land. One had to make certain that the person who just had a rag on his back, living from meal to meal and having nothing to lose, ought never to be responsible for any important part of this country's fortunes. It was held that only people who had a continuing interest in this country because of their continuing interest in land and wealth should have responsibilities of that sort.
Looking back to those days, without the advantages of foresight or of birth, one must admit that that attitude might have been acceptable to quite a number

of people. But it did not take account of the nationalism which has since grown to be the most important factor in modern international politics. It was not understood that people who lived in and off the streets could fight for their country in as great a way or a greater way than, for example, Lord Raglan and Lord Lucan, not because they were protecting their own wealth, of which they had none, but because they were protecting their country, of which they were inordinantly proud.

Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman is not giving to these gentlemen even the credit to which they are entitled. Ninety years or so ago they could well have sought out a cosy corner in some equivalent of the Ministry of Supply. They did not. They went out and led their men into battle.

Mr. Heffer: With disastrous results.

Mr. Sheldon: With disastrous results, as my hon. Friend says.
One must remember the background. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) has considered motives rather than results. In fact, the motives were not quite so altruistic, for that was the great road to glory. In those days, for a peer of the realm the road to glory was largely through military action, and action of a highly competitive sort, as anyone knows who has studied the Crimean War, the part of history of which I was thinking when I made those observations.
The disastrous results to which my hon. Friend referred are known to all. These people were not selected for their ability, but because they represented an interest. Even today, more than 100 years later, it is held that people should be selected for the House of Lords not on their ability, but according to succession, according to the accident of birth.
At the time of the 1964 Election, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to the Prime Minister at that time as the 14th earl, he received the rebuttal that my right hon. Friend was the 14th Mr. Wilson. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The interesting fact now is that the 14th Mr. Wilsons, Mr. Smiths and Mr. Joneses have won. They are the majority, and the 14th earls have


lost, because they represented only one aspect of our life. This is the big change which has come into our political life, and it will be represented more fully in the House of Lords if some of the excellent Amendments which I and my hon. Friends have put down are adopted.
I have spoken so far only about Amendment No. 1 and have not had an opportunity to discuss any of the others which are being taken at the same time.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has made a strong case against succession by heredity. Does the same apply to the monarchy?

Mr. Sheldon: The monarchy is not covered by the Amendment. Moreover, I do not entirely agree that the two are interdependent. The monarchy, in my view, does a job satisfactorily and economically well, and at a higher level of ability than one might be likely to find elsewhere. So long as that state of affairs remains, it will, obviously, be acceptable to the majority of right hon. and hon. Members. Since it is not under discussion now, I shall not take that aspect of the matter further.
I was saying that I have directed my remarks so far to Amendment No. 1. At a later stage, I shall hope to catch the eye of the Chair and, perhaps, mention some of the others.

[Mr. J. C. JENNINGS in the Chair]

5.0 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In the course of his introductory speech to this part of our proceedings, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), whose remarks I shall not at present attempt to emulate in respect of length, among much other highly mythical history founded his argument upon an entirely false assumption. That false assumption was that the so-called hereditary principle on which the House of Lords is at present constituted is the principle of heredity.
The hon. Member spent much of his time demolishing a structure which, in fact, did not exist—his assumed House of Lords founded on the principle of heredity. If the House of Lords were founded on the principle of heredity, a peerage would not descend to the eldest

son. It would descend to all sons, since there can be no ground for selecting in respect of ability or other characteristics one rather than another of the offspring of a sire.
Secondly, the descent of peerages would universally be, as it is called, in tail general, that is, through the female as well as through the male, since there is equally no reason for supposing that whatever virtues may be transmissible hereditarily are not just as transmissible through the female as through the male.
But, of course, all this has nothing to do with the constitution, or the principles of the constitution, of the House of Lords. The House of Lords is a prescriptive House. It consists partly of members who are nominees in that they are peers of first creation; but it consists also and preponderantly of members by hereditary succession who are there by prescription, because prescriptive right to succeed in a certain way to a seat and to a writ of summons to the Upper Chamber has come down in the course of our history.
The fact that the elder son succeeds arises from the convention—an old convention, but still a convention, and an arbitrary convention—of primogeniture. The fact again that some peers and peeresses sit in the other place by descent through the female arises from a long and tangled story in the 14th and 15th centuries, when the Parliamentary barony was superseding the feudal barony and the old feudal baronies which still survived had to be interpreted in terms of those Parliamentary baronies by creation with which men were then predominantly familiar. These are matters of convention which, in the course of time, have come to be the prescriptive right on which the institution is founded.
The argument which the whole Bill raises is whether we shall be the gainers by replacing an Upper Chamber partly consisting of nominees and partly consisting of peers by succession but constituted on the principle of prescription, by a Chamber constituted by nomination in obedience to a formula which is not even written into the Bill. Here, in the very first debate on the very first Amendment, the Committee comes right up against the difficulty that the heart of the Bill, any sense there may be in it— and I think that there is not a great deal—is in the Preamble and what lies behind


the Preamble. It is only if one accepts the scheme alluded to in the Preamble that the Bill becomes intelligible, and that it becomes possible to argue about it at all. It is in order to clear the way for the scheme there hinted at that the Clauses, on the first of which we are engaged, are drafted.
The first two Clauses represent three actions; they carry out three jobs. First, in Clause 1, they demolish the existing House of Lords; the House of Lords by prescription is abolished by Clause 1. It is then replaced in Clause 2 by a different second Chamber, a Chamber by nomination. Although the terminology partly conceals this, this is the reality. The existing House of Lords is done away with and an entirely new second Chamber, a nominated second Chamber, is invented and put in its place.
Then, thirdly, in Clause 1(2), as introduced by the words which the Committee is now considering, a transitional bridge is erected for the time being between the House of Lords destroyed and the Chamber of nominees created.
Therefore, in the debate which the hon. Member has inaugurated we are really considering three things at the same time. I suspect that our difficulty in doing so is setting a pattern which will be followed right the way through these debates. The desirability of the words, which are technically the subject of the Amendment, and which the Amendment proposes to leave out, must go back to the whole question of the desirability of what we are not allowed to debate at all—at any rate for a long time—the scheme referred to in the Preamble.
That is the first point. Second, we are invited to consider at one remove the new structure inaugurated by Clauses 1 and 2 taken together. Only then, but, by this queer inversion of order, first, can we come to consider whether there should be some transition from that which a majority of Members probably do not wish to be disturbed in this way to something which a majority of Members certainly do not want to have at all. That is really the scope of the debate on the Amendment.
It is in general monstrous that we should have to approach this fundamental constitutional question sideways-on, crablike. It is nonsense that we should have

to debate it at all in this way, in this order and in this style. But if we must, then we should recognise, and I ask my hon. Friends to recognise, the value of the hereditary principle in a prescriptive House by insisting on the retention of these words and thus of the transitional provision in subsection (2).
The value of that prescriptive institution is that it provides a second Chamber constituted on a principle basically distinct from that of this House, a principle which does not enable it seriously to defy the wishes of this House, but which also enables it on many questions to take a different point of view from this House. It can often be a point of view which reflects just as well and importantly what is being felt and thought in the country, and deserves to be taken into account by the legislature.
So, as we are inevitably debating on the Amendment that hereditary principle which has come to give us the prescriptive second House of today, I suggest that the Committee should reject the Amendment and retain the words that the Amendment would leave out.

Mr. Heffer: I support the Amendment. If subsection (1) were amended as I would like, it would read:
The holder of a hereditary peerage, whether in the peerage of England, Scotland, Great Britain or the United Kingdom, shall not in right of that peerage receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords in any Parliament summoned after the commencement of this Act.
That commends itself to me and, I am sure, to most of my hon. Friends, even those who are nevertheless falling for the idea of some sort of nominated Chamber rather than an elected Chamber or even those who believe in the elimination of a second Chamber. I can see no reason why most of my hon. Friends should not support this very moderate, sensible and intelligent Amendment.
We are being asked to bring ourselves into the 20th century in the Government and Parliamentary system of the country. In the other place we have a very strange organisation. In a very short statement in opening the debate, my hon. Friend made it clear that in the other place there are a large number of people whose right to be there derives only from the fact that they were born of certain


parents in a certain bed at a certain time. It is true that others in another place were nominated for membership by successive Prime Ministers, but the overwhelming majority of the Members of another place are there because of birth rather than because of ability.
I am not suggesting that many of them have not immense ability. Of course they have. But if we are to have people in the House of Lords purely on the basis of ability deriving from birth, I suggest that we have in the House of Lords the dockers from the Port of London because of their ability deriving from their birth. We could have there the joiners who are employed in the building industry. They have as much right to be there, on the basis of birth and of their contribution to the country over the generations, as have those who presently frequent the House of Lords.
We could take this to its logical conclusion. We have all made a contribution to the country. I do not know whether I am the 14th Mr. Heffer. In fact, I can trace my ancestry back to a Sarah Heffer, in Cambridge Churchyard who died in 1647. My ancestry may go back long before that and I may be the 101st Mr. Heffer. But that did not give to my family—those who ploughed the fields and built the cities of this land, those who plodded behind the soldiers in chainmail in France when we were fighting those battles—the right at any time to sit in the House of Lords and to deliberate on the future laws of the country. Certain people were given the right to sit in the Lords because they were born in a different bed from that in which I was born.
This is a ridiculous situation. We are living in the 20th century. If people are to deliberate on the laws of this country, they must arrive either in this Chamber or in the other Chamber on the basis of their ability and their support in the country—and on the basis of the democratic principle of election. That is the only way in which anyone can acquire the right to determine the laws which govern the people. It cannot be done on the basis of his birth or succession. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said that this was a long and tangled story of the 15th century.

That is the point. That is why we say that it is about time that we got out of the 15th century and into the 20th century.
5.15 p.m.
It has been suggested that if we continue to have representatives of the aristocracy in another place, they will bring to it their understanding of agriculture and industry and the immense knowledge which they possess. Let us look at our agriculture and industry and see where we have reached following the efforts of the aristocracy. Let us then look across the Atlantic towards the United States and see what the throw-outs from this country have done, those who came from the working class, who did not get on here, who were persecuted and forced to cross the Atlantic Channel.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Channel? "]—It is now a channel. It was an ocean. These people built the greatest industrial complex in the world. They did not say, "My father was Lord So-and-So". They said, "I am John Smith" or "I am Bill Brown". Look what they have done, despite the fact that they have no aristocracy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They now have a new aristocracy, but that does not give that new aristocracy the prescriptive right to sit in the second Chamber in the United States. They may get there by finance, but they still have to fight their way to the second Chamber. They do not get there automatically and they have no prescriptive right to be there. Nor should the aristrocracy have that prescriptive right in this country.
All our Parliamentary and constitutional rights in this country have been gained by an immense struggle by the people below the aristocracy to get those rights. The House of Commons was not given to us. The House of Commons has a long history, but it has changed through history. In order to ensure that all the people were represented in the House of Commons, as they are, there had to be a great democratic struggle in this country. People fought for the rights which we have—and they fought against the representatives of those who presently sit in the House of Lords and against the monarchy, too. Hon. Members should never forget that we have our rights because of past struggles to eliminate the power and influence of the aristocracy.
The aristocracy are no longer in that position. I feel a little sorry for them, poor pathetic creatures that they are. They welcome the Bill because they know that it is beneficial to them, but they will not welcome it if my hon. Friend's Amendment is accepted, because there will then be no benefit in it for them. The transitional bridge will have been destroyed—and a very good thing, too. I ask the House to support the Amendment.
In discussing the Bill we are talking in terms of advancing the whole concept of democracy. If we are not talking about that, what are we talking about? What is this debate about, if we are not here to advance the concept of democracy? Like the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, I am against the idea of a nominated Chamber. I do not like a nominated Chamber. It is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, unfortunate that we have to discuss these issues the wrong way round. If we get the first part of the proposal eliminated, the Bill will have gone, but we have to start at the back and work through to the front, which is very strange.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. J, C. Jennings): Order. The Committee must realise that this matter is under acute discussion in another place within the precincts of this part of the Palace. Hon. Members should not waste time in for ever going back to the question of the Preamble but should stick to the Amendment.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order. Will you tell me, Mr. Jennings, where the acute discussions are taking place, because I should like to take part in them? If there are to be acute discussions about the way in which the Bill is to be debated, surely that is a matter relevant to all hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate.

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman had been present during the discussion of points of order—

Mr. Ridley: I was.

The Temporary Chairman: Good. The hon. Gertleman must therefore appreciate that the discussions are taking place within the Palace at the instigation of

the Chairman of Ways and Means. With his knowledge of the geography of this House, the hon. Gentleman must know where to find the Chairman of Ways and Means if he wishes to make representations.

Mr. Birch: On a point of order. Who has been asked to join these discussions?

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order. I do not know who is in the league at the moment.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am prepared to hear points of order, but do not let us waste time. When I have given a ruling, let us not pursue it.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order. I should like to know who has been asked to take part in these discussions. Can you tell me, Mr. Jennings, how I am to pursue my Parliamentary duties which seem to require my presence in two separate places at one and the same time?

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman asks my advice. If he wishes to catch my eye, I advise him to pursue that course which will enable him so to do.

Mr. Heffer: I accept your Ruling completely, Mr. Jennings. It is a wise thing to have discussions going on elsewhere in the building on this subject of the Preamble.
The whole argument is about democracy and equality of opportunity. The Amendment is precisely along those lines and would extend democratic rights and give greater equality of opportunity. It is quite wrong in our society that all men should be equal, but that some, because they happen to be born peers, should be more equal than others. The Amendment would help to eliminate that from one aspect of our society—the legislature. I therefore ask hon. Members to support the Amendment.

Mr. Ridley: I am extremely glad to be able to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) who put their case in a wider context than it required. The Amendment seeks to remove the right of existing peers of succession to attend the House


of Lords when they are already precluded from voting in the House of Lords by other parts of the Bill. So the point we are discussing is narrow. It is whether they should be precluded from attending the House of Lords while still the holders of hereditary peerages.
The Amendment goes much further than is either necessary or desirable. Even granting the two hon. Members their case, which I do not for a moment, that all hereditary peers should be precluded from taking part in the affairs of the House of Lords, it seems wrong to say that they may not continue to attend and speak. The reason is that they have, as it were, a right, almost a contract, by virtue of the writ of summons which they have received and which, after all, is perfectly constitutional and proper, to attend and to vote, and the Bill proposes to take away the right to vote. That is going far enough. We cannot discuss at length whether they should have the right to vote, but to go as far as is suggested in the Amendment and say they cannot even attend in the House of Lords seems to be almost a breach of faith.
It is often said that one of the main reasons for justifying the present House of Lords is that the standard of debates, the standard of contribution of knowledge and experience to the affairs of the nation is much higher even than the standard of the contributions from some hon. Members on some occasions in this House.

Mr. John Mendelson: Tripe.

Mr. Ridley: What authority has the hon. Gentleman for his opinion that the contributions which this House has made, especially in terms of dealing with our national difficulties and dangers, are all that excellent?
The need to have informed debate, often on minor, technical and rather narrow issues, is advanced as a reason for keeping the House of Lords in its present shape. Whatever may be said about voting, it would be wrong to exclude the hereditary peers, who have spent so much of their time and experience discussing matters to which, in the calmer atmosphere which prevails in another place, they have often been able to bring

a greater degree of expertise than we have in the Commons.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: Nonsense.

Mr. Ridley: The burden of the case which the two hon. Gentlemen have put forward is that they are against the inheritance of political power by succession, and they argued cogently in favour of their view, but when I asked the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne whether he would like to abolish the hereditary monarchy he rather sidestepped the question. But it requires answering, because if the hon. Gentleman is against the inheritance of political power directly through the accident of one's birth, he cannot continue to support the hereditary monarchy.

Mr. English: The hon. Member will recollect that the monarchy was elected for rather more centuries than it has been hereditary. It has been hereditary only since 1215.

Mr. Ridley: That only strengthens my case that it is difficult to be selective about which forms of hereditary political power one is prepared to support. One can draw all sorts of conclusions about past dynasties of monarchs who have ruled this country, all of them hereditary, in the history which we learned at school. But, whether one thinks that they have been good or bad, the one thing that emerges from such a study, as it emerges from such a study of the present constitution of the House of Lords, is that they all became monarchs by accident, just as hereditary peers—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. We are not discussing the hereditary monarchy. While a passing reference may be made to previous struggles in history, we cannot discuss the merits or demerits as such.

Mr. Ridley: I come immediately to order and I will not mention the monarchy again. I wish only to say that there are many things in our lives which are hereditary, and the political power of the peers is one.
5.30 p.m.
The skills which we inherit, money which some inherit, those who live in more prosperous parts of the country—all these are derived from accidents of


birth. It would be extremely difficult and unwise to try to eliminate all those factors in our lives deriving from what are called accidents of birth. This is what hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to do. It will not be possible. It is the fact that accidents of birth occur that has enabled the peers to carry out their functions over the centuries.
There are many political families in the country who do not have a peerage. They are examples of generation after generation who have attended in this House, families who have wielded great privilege and political powers. They have this, not through the right of succession to a peerage, but simply because they were families which, by nature, were inclined to be interested in politics and the future of the country.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne pointed out that it was not simply by right of a peerage that many families had played such a dominant and continuing part in the political history of the country; it was by accident, the fact that the families were landed, wealthy, interested and public-spirited. Over a period of years this had happened. Of itself it is no bad tiling. There are hon. Members opposite who have succeeded their fathers in this House, there are family traditions of representation here sometimes for three, four or five generations. One can say that the hereditary political principle has been established in the Labour Party too.
I do not criticise it, in a way I welcome it. There is an element of training, or environment, about the way this has sprung up and it is all to the good. One could say the same thing about plumbers or electricians. Son succeeds father and it is a good thing, because it imbues the whole of the family with an interest in the trade. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) talked a lot about the American situation. He said that the Americans had no aristocracy. After hoots of derision from this side of the Committee he admitted that they had, but that it was a very different one, one founded on wealth. Political power is founded on wealth and financial strength in America.

Mr. Paget: Would it not be a plutocracy?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. and learned Gentleman has the better of me, it is a plutocracy. What surprises me is that the hon. Member for Walton, seems to prefer a plutocracy to an aristocracy. It seems an extraordinary basis, that one should select those who wield political power not by some completely impartial accident such as that of their birth, but by the more partial accident of whether they can make money. The ability to acquire large sums of money is not necessarily—in fact on the whole tends not to be—a good concomitant to using large amounts of political power.

Mr. Heffer: I agree entirely with the hon. Member, that wealth in itself by no means signifies that one should have political power. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I said that there was this new type of plutocracy in America, but it does not have the prescriptive right to sit in a second Chamber, whereas in this country, on the basis of birth, people now have the right to sit in the second Chamber. This is wrong.

Mr. Ridley: Are we talking about political power or the right to sit in another place? If the hon. Member was interested in political power, I am sure that he would not be interested in a peerage himself so that he could sit in the right place. Political power means that one can secure the supreme nomination in the country, which is what the Kennedy family has done through the last decade. There are other political families in America who have reigned for generations. They have no right to vote in the Senate, but they have very much more power than those who have a right to sit in another place.
Instead of chasing the shadow of constitutional rights the hon. Gentleman would be much wiser to concentrate on the substance of real political power. That brings me to the right way of constituting any second Chamber. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said, we are abolishing the existing second Chamber and, for good or evil, this is the proposition before the Committee. Before we agree to this it would be wise to discuss what we put in its place. If we are to have a second Chamber there are several ways of constituting. We could have direct election by the people,


election by hon. Members of this House, we could have some form of regional selection, whereby county councils and city councils would elect someone and send him to the second Chamber.
Later on, it might be based upon some reform arising out of the Maud Commission, whereby there would be true regional Governments, which would, in turn send representatives to the Upper House. It may be by appointment, by patronage, which is the present proposal, by the appointment by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Or it could be by some chance process of selection.
The reason why the existing second Chamber has worked, not marvellously, not ideally, but on the whole tolerably well, is because the chance selection of one man to a hereditary peerage with the right to sit in the other place has produced something which is not an interest group—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There are objections to all the other ways. If there is one group of people who do not necessarily stand for any particular interest, be it trade unions or big business or the professions, or any pressure group such as bombard hon. Members, then it must be those who sit in the other place. We have in this Chamber representatives from all the main interests in our society. It is all right because we know them, identify and accept them.
We have a second Chamber where none of these pressure groups appear to exist. This has been because selection is by accident. It is not even by accident of birth alone. I am the son of a peer but I am, call it good luck or bad luck, the second son so I am able to sit in this House and not the other place.
This is an accidental element which produces the sort of impartiality which on the whole is accepted by the people. If I may instance something rather curious to back up my argument, it would be that people are very Socialist-minded in regard to wealth and its inheritance. The making of money is very much criticised by the people. If by a pure fluke, one wins the football pools or £25,000 on the Premium Bonds, people are on the whole quite tolerant. These windfalls are not taxed because, on the whole, people do not feel that one person

in a million should be selected for certain privileges irrespective of merit or hard work. This is one reason why the present composition of the House of Lords has been tolerated.

Mr. W. Baxter: I have been listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's argument about how the other House should be selected. Is he advocating a lottery system?

Mr. Ridley: I am merely discussing the alternatives. I have a certain amount to say on them. If the hon. Gentleman listens to my argument, he may find his question answered.
I have dealt with the present system. Working back up the scale—

Mr. Thomas Steele: On a point of order. I have been listening with care to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). He is dealing with how the other House should be constituted. I am not sure whether that is dealt with in these Amendments. However, may we have your guidance, Mr. Jennings, on whether we shall be able to follow this line of argument?

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury has been putting the obverse side of what we are discussing in the Amendments. We are discussing a change in the method of constituting the other House. The hon. Gentleman went on to discuss the alternative. I considered this point while he was speaking and found, to my satisfaction at any rate, that he was perfectly in order. If he is in order, then as long as I am in the Chair, for the next few minutes, everyone else who speaks on the same subject will be in order.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order. Would you, Mr. Jennings, accept a Motion that you should stay in the Chair for the rest of the debate?

The Temporary Chairman: That is hardly a point of order, but it could be considered, provided I had suitable breaks.

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to you. Mr. Jennings, for your Ruling, which coincides with your predecessor's Ruling on speeches made before you occupied the Chair.
I come to the question of what would be a better basis for constituting the Upper House. No hon. Member seriously advocates that there should be direct elections by the electorate for the Upper House. We have direct elections to this House and it would be meaningless to duplicate such elections, which would add nothing to the powers of the House of Commons. Nor does there seem to be any point in the House of Commons electing a second Chamber by means of direct elections from within itself. This system is practised in certain countries, but its relevance to our constitutional position is hard to see.
I therefore come back to the method proposed in the Bill, which is the main reason why hon. Members on both sides are united in objecting to the Bill and to the proposed method of composition of the Upper House, namely, the system of nomination by the Executive. This is why the Bill is not acceptable to a very large number of hon. Members on whatever side of the Committee they sit. It is curious that as our debates continue more and more back bench Members are joining in an alliance against right hon. and hon. Members who tend to sit on the Front Benches.
5.45 p.m.
Here is yet one more example. We had another example during last night's debate and, to some extent, during Monday's debate. This represents quite fairly the reaction of Parliament against the desire of the Executive to control and nominate the other House. The Secretary of State for Social Services is in his place. If he had been here last night, his ears would have burned because many hon. Members paid tribute to his reforming zeal when he was Leader of the House earlier in this Parliament. But I am sure that he must have doubts about the wisdom of allowing the Executive to nominate the members of the other House, because that could only strengthen the power of the Executive in relation to the Legislature. The proposal that the Executive should nominate the members of the other House has caused the unity among otherwise unusual political running mates on both sides of the Committee.
All that has happened—and this is the answer to the intervention of the hon.

Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter)—is that the Government have talked down the hereditary peerage and caused it to lose its nerve and determination by continually describing it as a threat to the government of the country. I do not know of any instances of the hereditary peerage having challenged this Government or any other Government in the last 30 years. It is a complete bogey in their minds that at some awkward moment in the political life of the nation they will find themselves frustrated by the hereditary element in another place. That has never happened. This is a non-problem because if the Government were to reform the other place, however they were to reform it and nominate, elect or select its members, they would still be open, and indeed might be more open, to the possibility of having their measures blocked by the other place.
Therefore, for the Government to say, "We are prepared to have our measures blocked by our nominees" is a contradiction in terms, because by nominating the members of the other House they would be destroying the likelihood of their blocking the Government's measures. As a result of this bogey, this dream in the Government's mind, they have persuaded the conservative-minded hereditary House of Lords to abandon its position in the Constitution, small though it is, and to give up the struggle. This is a terrible thing to have done.
If the Government were to bring down the House of Lords in a running battle, we would at least know that we could establish a better basis. But to bring down the existing system without working out and justifying what is to replace it is merely asking to bring about a situation of uncertainty and continual alteration which will not give us constitutional certainty and peace but destroy the whole basis of the British Constitution.

Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has opened up a very wide ranging debate, which I suppose was inevitable in view of the fact that he has tabled a dozen or so Amendments and new Clauses. My new Clause No. 6 is specific in seeking to get rid of all the hereditary peers within one month of the passing of the Bill. There can be nothing more definite and specific than that.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are not discussing political power. Some of these Gentlemen can and do wield political power outside as well as inside the second Chamber. There are powerful forces in the City of London and elsewhere who never see inside the Houses of Parliament but who wield much more power than the back bench Members of the House of Commons. To that extent I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but we are not discussing that; we are discussing the composition of the second Chamber. The hon. Gentleman said that the assumption was that if one attacks and seeks to destroy the hereditary element in the second Chamber, one is by inference attacking the hereditary element of the monarchy. The monarchy is not included in the Bill, but I would like on another occasion to debate that problem because the two might well be linked.

The Temporary Chairman: I have ruled that no reference should be made to the hereditary monarchy, and I hope that hon. Members will recognise that.

Mr. Hamilton: I think your memory is a little short, Mr. Jennings. You said that only passing references could be made to the monarchy, and I was just passing on to my next point.

The Temporary Chairman: Then I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pass to it immediately.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman referred to impartial accidents of birth, and I will deal with that in a little detail.
According to the White Paper there are 736 hereditary peers by succession who are entitled to sit in the other place, a great proportion of whom do not attend. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said, some of them are quite young men with considerable ability. If the Bill were passed in its present form they would continue to sit in the other place for the rest of their lives, which might be for another 30 or 40 years. It is true that they would not be voting members, but we make the mistake of thinking that voting is more important than speaking, than moving Amendments and Motions, or introducing Bills. These powers are much more important and

more influential on public opinion than trooping through Lobbies. If these young and able people are passionately interested in party Parliamentary politics they should be given the chance, in fact they should be compelled to take the chance, of getting out of the second Chamber and on to the hustings.
Their sons will be able to do so, since they will not be allowed to enter the other Chamber and will be able to hawk themselves round the local Tory constituency parties for candidatures. The hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) foresaw that the Tory benches in the House of Commons would be full of Peers and the Labour benches in the other place would be full of retired Members of this House. This is a situation which one would like to avoid—

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. I merely said that I thought that the benches on both sides of this House would be full of hereditary peers and on both sides of the other place full of life peers.

Mr. Hamilton: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that there would be rather more on this side of the House than on his side. However that may be, if the hereditary peers were removed forthwith, or within a month as suggested in the new Clause, not only would that be a blow for the modernisation of Parliament, on which my right hon. Friend is so keen, but it would be a blow for democracy. It would reduce the House of Lords almost immediately to just over 300 members, 26 of whom would be bishops, whom I am seeking to remove, 23 would be serving or retired Law Lords, whom another hon. Member is trying to remove, 155 would be life peers and 122 peers of first creation. That would be about the size which the Government have suggested in the White Paper. In any event, there can be no democratic justification for allowing hereditary peers to sit for the rest of their lives, if they so wish, in the Upper Chamber.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no democratic justification at all for the Bill?

Mr. Hamilton: We have a mandate for it. It was contained in our election manifesto, and if hon. and right hon.


Gentlemen opposite choose to make this an issue at the next election, if the Bill does not go through, I would be happy to fight the next election on the basis of what we do, if anything, about the second Chamber.
The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) has an Amendment down, No. 163, on dukes. There are 26 dukes left, not counting the royal dukes. No new dukes have been created since 1874. They are all allowed to sit in the House of Lords. The Duke of Bedford and the Duke of Devonshire—I say nothing about their present incomes—got their wealth from the sacked monasteries in the period of the Reformation. That is their only justification for sitting in the other Chamber. Four dukes are descended from the bastard sons of Charles II; the Duke of St. Albans by Nell Gwynn, the Duke of Grafton by the Duchess of Cleveland, the Duke of Richmond by the Duchess of Portsmouth and the Duke of Buccleuch by Lucy Walters. Only two dukes in the Upper Chamber received their titles through military merit, the Duke of Marlborough and the Duke of Wellington.
The House of Fitzclarence sprang directly from the amusements of Charles II. He is credited with 12 bastard children. Henry I beat him; he is credited with 19. The Earl of Munster is the descendant of George Augustus Frederick Fitzclarence, who was the son of the Duke of Clarence, who was later William IV, and Mrs. Jordan the actress—they were not married. The story of the Fitzclarences is one of the more interesting among those Royal romances which always seem to involve birth on the wrong side of the blanket. The Earl of Munster was the eldest of 10 children, all of whom were probably bastards. The Duke of Clarence was one of the seven dissolute sons of George III, but he at least remained faithful to Mrs. Jordan. In 1831 the eldest son was made Earl of Munster.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is sailing pretty near the wind. He must be very careful in carrying out his historical researches and propounding them here that he casts no aspersions upon living persons who are also members of another place at the present time.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Hamilton: Oh, yes, Mr. Jennings. I would not for a moment dream of doing that. Earlier in my remarks, I made it quite clear that I intended to cast no aspersions on any living Member of the other place. However, I took the view that it was important to discover the qualifications for membership of the other place, and I was attempting to establish what they are.

Mr. Paget: I am surprised that my hon. Friend is astonished and, apparently, innocent about the origins of many English peerages. Let him compare them with some of the Scottish peerages, where he will find some real villains.

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. and learned Friend is forestalling me a little. I was coming on to some of them in due course, though to do it fully would take me a long time.
The facts that I am giving the Committee come from one of the historical lectures which I used to give a long time ago—

Sir A. V. Harvey: I find it difficult to understand why the hon. Gentleman has it in for illegitimate children of the past, when, apparently, it is his Government's intention to give present-day illegitimate children equal rights with every other human being.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has it quite wrong. I am objecting to illegitimate children having a particular right by virtue of going into the other Chamber. That is all.
If I may resume my lecture, in 1831 the eldest son was made Earl of Munster. He was determined to cash in on the royal connection, and he married Mary Wyndham, who was the natural daughter of the Earl of Egremont. The double representation of bastardy on their combined coat of arms must have been quite unique.
I come now to the case of the Duke of Richmond and also that of the Dukes of Lennox and Gordon. That family stems from Charles II and Louise de Kéroualle, who was made Duchess of Portsmouth by the grateful King. The Royal arms used by Dukes of Richmond, who can and under the Bill will still sit in the Lords, are shown in the Scottish manner of denoting bastardy, and I think that


some of them are quite proud of their coat of arms.
I come finally, since my hon. Friends encourage me, to the Duke of Montrose. His ancestor was Sir William Graham of Kincardine, who subdued Scotland for Charles II when that monarch apparently was busy elsewhere. The seventh duke is now a farmer in Rhodesia. He went there about thirty years ago. but he has the right still to come and sit in the House of Lords. He is quite wealthy out there and is one of Ian Smith's set-up at the moment. I remember putting a Question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asking him to take steps to stop that gentleman coming to sit in the House of Lords. At the moment, he is entitled to sit there, and would still be under the terms of the Bill, once he applies for the necessary warrant.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is being immensely helpful to the Committee in producing this most interesting statistical evidence. Would he not agree that such statistical evidence is only of value when it is produced with comparable figures against which to set it? Will he give some statistics about his own antecedents and those of his hon. Friends?

Mr. Hamilton: They may be equally disgusting, but they do not entitle me to sit in the other place. That is the only point that I am making. I dare not look into my own ancestry. I do not know what I would find if I did. I dare say that the same applies to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). Nevertheless, I think that the point is made.
I mention these dukes only because they can sit and vote in the Lords. Three of them did so on the Rhodesian Order which partly inspired this Bill. The Dukes of Atholl, Rutland and Westminster came and voted with the Conservatives against the Government on that Order.
Incidentally, when the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury says that there are no pressure groups in the other place and that its members are completely impartial and safeguard the rights of the individual, he is talking through the back of his neck. He must remember the Burmah Oil affair. I did a considerable amount of research into Burmah

Oil, and I mentioned the names of 38 peers, one of them even taking his seat on the day, who came to the other place to vote millions of £s to the Burmah Oil Company. To say that there are no pressure groups in the other place is nonsense.
Right from the time of the Reform Bill of 1831 to the present day, the hereditary element in the House of Lords has opposed all kinds of progressive measures. I have referred to some of them in this Chamber time and again. As recently as 1957, the then Conservative Government introduced the Rent Bill to allow private landlords to charge what rents they liked. Rachmanism was given a great fillip by that legislation.
The Bill had not been mentioned in the Tories' election manifesto of 1955. There was no mandate. The Lords passed it through all its stages—First Reading, Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading—in 19 hours. That seems to be the argument to show that, although the other place seeks to give the impression on occasion of being an impartial objective debating Chamber of very high standards, nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, the high standard of debates is another myth. In general terms, the standard of debate there is no higher than it is in this place. It is a masoleum. It is possible to debate at great leisure and for Members to say what they like simply because they are not answerable to the electorate. The quorum is three. The result is that on occasion three 90-year olds can be debating the destinies of the country. It is quite absurd.
To suggest that we gradually transform it by allowing the hereditary element slowly to recede is nonsense. We ought to end it very quickly. My suggestion is one month, and I hope that the Government will accept it.
[Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]

Mr. Gresham Cooke: We have listened to attacks on the hereditary principle from the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and from the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). I would point out to them that, in the British Isles as a whole, the hereditary principal goes a good deal


further than they suggest. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) pointed to the number of families who farm the same land for generation after generation, where fathers pass on their skills to their sons, who are all the better farmers for having fathers who were farmers. As anyone who lives in a mining area knows, much the same applies co the coal mining industry, where generation after generation of miners are proud for their sons to go into the pits and teach them skills which otherwise they would never learn.

Mr. John Hall: Another example which may be in the minds of some hon. Members occurs in one section of the meat trade. The same principle applies to bummarees, who have to inherit their jobs.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: The docks, too, provide a number of examples of this principle.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman say how the hereditary skill of a coal miner is passed on to his son?

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Fathers talk to their sons about the dangers of the pit and how to avoid them. They guide them in their first trips down the mine, showing them the ropes and teach them haulage as a start. As a result, the sons are better miners for their fathers having been miners before them. It is obvious that the son of a miner makes a better coal miner than anyone who is just the son of a Member of Parliament. So the hereditary principle goes much deeper than one thinks.
6.0 p.m.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne admitted to me that environment came quite strongly into this matter. The son of a peer is brought up in public life and learns something from his father. He sees his father in action in the House of Lords. The activities of these families in public life are carried on by generation after generation—the Cecils, the Salisburys, the Churchills, and families too numerous to mention. Now we see the growth of this aristocracy on the other side. We see Labour families growing up, such as the Greenwoods and the Foots. It may be that the Jays and the Callaghans will produce offspring who

will go into public life and will no doubt be successful.
My plea is that we should recognise that there is merit in the hereditary principle and that, therefore, it should to some extent be recognised in the House of Lords. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), myself and other hon. Members have Amendments coming along which will seek to allow for some proportion of the House of Lords to be made up of those who happen to be the sons of members of the peerage.
There is another factor why keeping the hereditary principle is in some degree important. The original peers were selected by their kings. They held positions as tenants in chief of their kings year after year, generation after generation, because in such positions they were defenders of the monarchy. To get rid of the hereditary principle, which the Bill seeks to do, is to take away one of the props of the monarchy which, after all, is and will be, as far as I can see, based on the hereditary principle. To disallow the sons of peers to have voting rights in the House of Lords is a retrograde step. Some rights should be given to hereditary members of the House of Lords to elect members into that body.
My plea today is that hon. Gentlemen opposite who have been slashing at the hereditary principle, and have brought out a few examples to its discredit, should remember the years and years in which great families of the State have given, and today give, public service in the House of Lords just as their fathers and grandfathers did. In fact, the sons of some have been Members. The hereditary principle should not be lightly cast aside, either in the peerage or in any other state of life to which a man is called in this country.

Mr. Stanley Henig: Many on this side have long dreamt of the day when there would be a Labour Government and we would get up with a proposal to abolish the House of Lords as such and the hereditary element in it. The Bill goes some way to meet that dream. But in discussing these Amendments we are discussing the kernel of the objection which many of us have long felt to the second Chamber as it has been


in this country. The object of the Amendment that we are principally discussing is to make certain that we get rid of that kernel once and for all rather than let it have a lingering death.
I should like briefly to put as strongly as possible the reasons why many on this side support the Amendment and will vote for it later, unless the rest of the Committee agrees with us and it becomes unnecessary.
Among the families that have served in the House of Lords over generations there have been cases where the son has been as able or more able than the father and his son more able still, and so it has gone on. I do not think that anyone, unless he was being completely churlish, would deny that this has happened in some cases. My point is that in those cases, surely the individuals who later made their mark in the House of Lords would have made their mark anyway without the advantage of this chance accident of birth. They might have got themselves, on their own merit, to the House of Lords, or perhaps to this House, and, therefore, had no need of the advantage of being made, as it were, designate Members from birth.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) mentioned political families in the Labour Party. There are also political families in the Conservative Party. But perish the day when somebody in the Labour Party can get up and say, "My father was a Member of Parliament and his father before him. I therefore claim my seat as of right." He has no right, and he should have no right, either in the House of Lords or in this House. The only right that he has is if, on his own merit, he shows that he deserves to be placed in a position of public responsibility. He will do that by getting himself elected to this Chamber or by the appropriate mechanism for service in the other Chamber.
I take the point about Members of the House of Lords not being an interest group. Not an interest group indeed! Surely hereditary peers are an interest group. The moment that the son of a duke or an earl has the right to sit in the House of Lords, he becomes part of an interest group. It is no coincidence that he happens to represent a thin segment of society.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that under the provisions of the Bill there will probably be two dukes in the House of Commons before long and none in the House of Lords?

Mr. Henig: We are not discussing the provisions of the whole Bill at the moment. If any duke or other individual can persuade the electorate of a constituency in this country that he should represent it in the House of Commons, I defend his right to be here. However, in my opinion, he ought to be elected because he is Mr. So-and-so who has done, and can do, good work—not because of the blood that is supposed to flow in his veins.
I was about to make the point that those who are now in the House of Lords on the hereditary basis are there because of what their fathers, grandfathers or great-grandfathers did. They may have technical skills to offer. But why not go out into the street and select at random the first 500 worthy citizens and say that they and their descendants for all time should be in the new House of Lords? It would be just as absurd. Yet many of those people will have equal skills to offer. In an age when the people of the country decide who shall have control, individuals should get to positions of power and responsibility only if they can convince the electorate that they deserve that trust. They should not have an unequal start because of birth. Therefore, there can be no justification for continuing in the House of Lords with any hereditary principle at all.
I go further. I think that it is an insult to say in effect to those who get to the House of Lords on the hereditary basis, "We are not quite certain whether you will be able to get anywhere on your own, so we will put you in the House of Lords to make certain". This is an absurd and unjustifiable state of affairs.
I move now to another point which has not so far been discussed, but which is equally serious. If we leave in the subsection that the Amendment seeks to delete, we will have two classes of Members in the House of Lords, the voting and the non-voting Members. I am not clear about the precedent in other legislative bodies for voting and non-voting Members. It may be that when my right


hon. Friend winds up he will be able to explain in what Assembly it has been used and with what success.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Even if the subsection is left out, there will still be the two categories of voting and non-voting Members.

Mr. Henig: Provided that the rest of Bill is left as it is, but we will have to debate that later. We are dealing with the subsection and I am making a frontal assault on the idea that we should have two classes of Members. In any legislative body where people presumably act and work as colleagues in the work of legislation and checking the Executive, there is room for only one class of Member—the Member with the right vote.
It is absurd to say that somebody may contribute to a debate, but cannot vote on it. I am prepared to recognise that there may be debates in this Chamber, or in any other, when some of those who vote have not heard all the debate, but by this provision we shall enshrine that practice as part of the rules of the House of Lords, and that seems to me to be a bad principle.
We are debating more than one Amendment, and one of our difficulties is that not all these Amendments deal with the same thing. I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is not here. I do not know whether he intends to speak specifically to Amendment No. 2, which has been chosen for debate as well as for a Division.
That Amendment is something which perhaps goes rather further than the points I have been making, and perhaps goes against them in principle, because by this Amendment we would exclude from the reformed House of Lords those who have been made hereditary peers in their own lifetime, because of meritorious service to the country, often at a time before the concept of life peers, which is the only concept we should be dealing with in a democratic age. For this reason I should be dubious about agreeing to Amendment No. 2, unless when my hon. Friend speaks to it, if he does—

Mr. English: I think that my hon. Friend has mistaken the difference between Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 2. Amendment No. 1 excludes virtually all the existing peers by succession.

The object of Amendment No. 2 is to make useless the creation of hereditary peerages for the future. Any person can be created a life peer and sit in the House of Lords. The Amendment does not affect that. It affects the creation of future hereditary peerages.

Mr. Henig: I am delighted with my hon. Friend's explanation, but that was not how I read it.
We are in an age when, for the first time, one would like to think that people's work is recognised on its merits, that everybody can be given due recognition for what he has done for our society. We are discussing a House of Lords which, in my opinion, should be able to make a contribution to the constitution. At the moment, three-quarters of the nominal Members of the House of Lords are there by virtue of what past generations have done, and this is unacceptable. It is, moreover, a relic, and a rather nasty form of class prejudice because of who these people are, and because of the small segment of society from which they come.
For those reasons, it seems to me that if we are to reform the House of Lords, we must grasp the nettle. We must break once and for all the whole hereditary set-up. We must leave no lingering remnant of it. Accordingly, I urge my right hon. Friend and the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: By courtesy of the Chair we have been having an extremely wide-ranging discussion on this Amendment on the whole question of the place of heredity in the constitution. We have been proceeding at a pace which I think is appropriate to the aeons of time over which our constitution has evolved.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is not here. If I understood him correctly, he said that what we were striving to do was to make our democracy work better. I think that here there is common ground between all hon. Members of this Committee. What we have to determine is whether there is any place at all for the hereditary principle in the workings of modern democracy, and in the democracy of Britain as we hope to see it in the future.
As I referred to the aeons of time over which our constitution has evolved, perhaps I might give a tiny historical sketch—in the course of a few sentences—of the process by which we have retreated from the power of blood ties and the hereditary principle. In ancient times, as we read, humanity tended to group itself into tribes. In ancient Greece, the tribe concentrated on the city. By the time we reach ancient Rome, we see that the development of law tended to concentrate round the rights of the family and in particular of the paterfamilias; and now we are working more and more towards the evolution of the individual human being as a person in his own right.
The hon. Member for Walton adverted interestingly to his own heredity. Were he here, I should have liked to have developed this matter more fully. Possibly it is his heredity which has given him the capacity to become a Member of this House, and to be a useful and influential Member. Possibly the forces of heredity working in their different mysterious ways might also make it suitable for a man, by heredity, to make an equally valuable and influential contribution in another House.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on having travelled from one end of the landscape to the other without leaving out a single point in his summary of the arguments against the hereditary principle, and without at any moment putting his foot in the middle of the road. The hon. Gentleman referred to popular science as one reads it in the magazines. I do not think that any scientist or any biologist, however popular, would try to pretend that heredity is not a factor in evolution. Many people place increasing emphasis on the importance of environment. Without being tangled in the controverisies over the inheritance of acquired characteristics, may I say that biology does not suggest that heredity is not a force in the development of human capacity, or indeed in the capacity of any form of life.
If we are thinking seriously about what the new second Chamber should be, I think we ought to agree that it should be a conspectus of all the best elements in British life. I hope that in the course of our discussions on other Amendments

we may be able to bring forward reasons why the Bill should contain more specific references to what the composition of the new House should be.
Under this Amendment it is appropriate to consider whether the family as an institution is one of the elements in British life, and whether it ought to be represented constitutionally in the Palace of Westminster. It may be that the family is not what it was in our national life and possibly that it is, in the words of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, becoming only a lingering remnant. But this remnant does linger still, and I daresay that families will continue to exist in our society for 100 or perhaps 1,000 years to come.
The family is an organism which recognises the importance of heredity. I think that the new second House, Senate, Upper House, call it what one will, ought to recognise it, too. It ought also to acknowledge the force of continuity as an element in life. In changing this institution, or in seeking to change it by the Bill, I think we should not forget that continuity is a very important element in all organic life. At the moment the House of Lords, in spite of changes which have been made since the war, and particularly in the last decade, is predominantly an hereditary House. As was said in The Times, in an extremely able article by Mr. Cecil King, this is possibly not because heredity was the reason for the choice of the Members of the Upper House, but rather that they earned their places there by virtue of primogeniture and the ownership of land.
Of course, with the Industrial Revolution and all the changes of the last 100 years, ownership of land no longer confers great authority or power. Therefore, I am not entirely opposed to the idea that the hereditary principle should be diminished in determining the composition of the Upper House. I hope that we will be able to dilate on this on the next Amendment.
6.30 p.m.
We should, however, oppose the spirit of this Amendment, because it involves too sudden and too drastic an exclusion of the hereditary principle. Of course, it is said in that treasure house of constitutional orthodoxy, "Iolanthe", that the


hereditary peers do nothing in particular, but they are also said to do it very well. The British people have a soft spot in their hearts for the hereditary principle and would not support a sudden or dramatic move at this time.
I do not want to deny that what a man may learn from his environment is becoming increasingly important and what he may learn by the forces of heredity and through his family is becoming increasingly unimportant in our national life. A man may learn a great deal through his schooling or his professional training which he should later give back by constitutional means to society. He may learn a great deal through his experience and through his own insights and there should be a place in our Upper House for all these gifts.
But if we abolish the hereditary principle altogether, we are saying that it is now impossible for a man to learn anything at all from his father. This is going further than we need. In my view, a reform as radical as the total exclusion of the hereditary principle is too sweeping. We would be allowing certain hon. Members to over-compensate for their fixations if we went so far as to accept these Amendments. I do not want to leave the people with a new constitution which is visibly at variance with the basic institutions and motive forces in their lives. It would be wrong to exclude heredity altogether as a factor of our national life. We should also be arguing against the facts of life in all the senses in which those words are commonly used.

Mr. Goodhew: I oppose the Amendment because I am strongly opposed to the idea of removing the hereditary peers at once, as I am to removing them at all—but I will debate that on another Amendment. I am opposed to being left, as we should be, with a House of nominated peers. I do not know who the hon. Members who support the Amendment imagine will be sent to the new Upper Chamber when they have deleted subsection (2) and got rid of the hereditary peers. I cannot imagine that any Prime Minister, of either party, will send young men to the new Upper House. This is something from which it has benefited for many years as a result of the hereditary principle.
On the contrary, I suspect that we shall have a lot of people who have been good lobby fodder in this House sent up there, who are nearing the end of their days here and can manage on the allowances there, added to a pension—since it seems that, for the moment, these nominated peers will not be paid.
We heard from the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) that we must have in the Upper House people who have proved their worth and that, in a democracy, the people should have control over those who rule them. What control does he think people outside will have over those who are nominated? Does he suggest that the electorate will benefit from being hereafter able to control those who served in the Upper House? All of us know that this is not so, that this is patronage which will be in the hands of the Prime Minister of the day. I am not content to see an Upper House dependent on that, whichever party is in power—

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member must surely accept that the elimination of this subsection does not mean the automatic acceptance of nomination. There are other subsections to be eliminated as well.

Mr. Goodhew: This may be so, but we can only take the Bill one Clause at a time. Therefore, if we are to accept the Amendment, we must face the proposition that we may be left with a House of nominated members only. I do not accept that this is a good arrangement, whichever party is in power.
I agree that pressure groups do not exert the same pressure on the hereditary peers. They are no one's servants, but it is clear that anyone who was in that House as a nominee of the Prime Minister of the day would feel under an obligation to him and I cannot accept that.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was rather disparaging about some of the peers who, in the past, have fought in battles for this country, and, in rather a cavalier fashion, dismissed their courage. He should remember—

Mr. Heffer: I said nothing of the sort. I merely pointed out that, while the aristocracy were going around in chain mail and mounted on horseback, the


people that I come from were marching with bows and arrows. I said nothing about the courage of either.

Mr. Goodhew: The hon. Gentleman did mention that, but he also said that the aristocracy did it for honour. He should remember the bowmen of Agincourt and also that the aristocracy have constantly fought and been out in front on these occasions, even in recent times. So to talk as though they only fought for the honours which they might receive is quite unnecessary.
The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) thinks it right to retain non-voting Members in the Upper House, but not voting Members. He said that political power lay with those who could speak and not those who could vote and suggested that this was where the influence lay, in being able to speak and influence people outside. If this were so, if political power did lie in speaking and not voting, this Government would have been out of office long ago. Their back benchers have talked against them constantly over the last three or four years, but they always hold back from voting against them. So I am not convinced of the hon. Member's proposition, and this is just the trouble. One knows that, in a nominated Chamber, nominees would be expected to vote in return for the places that they have been given; that is why I oppose it.
Much has been said about the hereditary principle and the way that heredity and environment affect people's upbringing. It is a mistake for this House lightly to dismiss the value of the environment in which people have been brought up over generations of service to the nation—whereas here, we are supposedly paid for it, there, they have never been—this service must have its effect on a person.
This has always been accepted, as witness the fact that the eldest sons of peers have the right to sit on the steps of the Throne in another place so that they shall be able to get the feel and the atmosphere of the Chamber and thereby prepare themselves for the duties which they will finally inherit on the deaths of their fathers. We should, therefore, be wrong to dismiss too lightly the value of this.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) could not understand why the Government were so frightened of the hereditary members. He said that the Lords had never used their powers to prevent any Government from having their way and had not, in that way, defied the House of Commons.
However, the Government have one big fear. It is that at some stage the Upper Chamber will prevent them from doing something which they might one day want to do, and that is to lengthen the life of a Parliament. In other words, when the time comes for a General Election to be held, the Government may find that they have become so unpopular that they may wish to elongate the life of Parliament so that the Labour Party and hon. Gentlemen opposite may remain in power. The House of Lords could prevent that. This is the bogey which the Government see behind the present Upper Chamber and why they are anxious to get rid of the voting rights of hereditary peers.
I hope, therefore, that the Committee will defeat the Amendment, which seems to be playing into the hands of those who wish to have a purely nominated Chamber.

Mr. English: I have listened for some hours to a turgid waste of oratory about heredity, a subject which seems to inspire passions of deracination among my hon. Friends and passions of adulation among hon. Gentlemen opposite.
There is little to be said about heredity, except that, in biological terms, it is a regression towards the mean; which, translated into everyday language, simply means that a pair of brilliant parents will probably have a less brilliant child than themselves whereas a pair of dimwitted parents will probably have a more brilliant child. That is the biological law.

Mr. Mendelson: Or is it the "English" law?

Mr. English: I do not know the intelligence level of my parents or of the parents of any of my hon. Friends. Perhaps that is a good thing.
We have been wasting a great deal of time primarily because of the way in which the Bill has been constructed. It


is drafted on the basis of a package deal. Part of the package is to exclude altogether from consideration the whole question of peerage. This has resulted in the series of tortuous and twisted Amendments which appear on the Notice Paper. This part of the package has been inserted, I understand, at the behest of the Opposition; and it is notable how hon. Gentlemen opposite have been conspicuously silent on this subject up to now. If I am wrong about this, I will no doubt be corrected.
It is hardly likely that the Government would have carefully kept the question of peerage out of the Bill voluntarily. One must assume, therefore, that the Bill appears in its present form because it is a part of the package presented to the Government by the Opposition and, in turn, presented to us by the Government. It should be made clear that the Opposition desire to keep what an hon. Gentleman opposite earlier described as something created in the fifteenth century.

Miss J. M. Quennell: Miss J. M. Quennell (Petersfield) indicated dissent.

Mr. English: I assure the hon. Lady that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) made that observation. He was perfectly right, for the majority of peers hold their rank by a patent of creation, a procedure dating back to that period. The result is that many of my hon. Friends are perhaps being somewhat unjust—indeed, one might say merciless—in wanting to exclude from the House of Lords many men who may have sat there for 20 years or more.
I am with my hon. Friends in saying that people should not walk into the Upper Chamber merely on the basis of their paternity. However, those who may have been there for 20 years might as well remain there until death removes them or until, in due course, there is an age limit which prevents them from remaining there.
For this reason I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is not on the strongest ground in arguing against the existing hereditary peers as distinct from the hereditary principle of succession to the Lords. That principle is totally indefensible, whereas it might be possible

to defend those who, under the existing law, sit in the Lords.
6.45 p.m.
I would have wished to have seen the Government introducing a Bill which altered the whole conception of peerage and abolished it at the same time as abolishing membership of the House of Lords. Two hon. Members of this House have a good chance of becoming the first dukes to sit in the House of Commons, something which would have somewhat perturbed our predecessors. On the other hand, the four honest men who, under the 1963 Act, resigned their titles—three of them in this House and one, Victor Montagu, outside—are the only four who should have succeeded to peerages, but who will not be entitled to keep their peerages merely because they were honest. As a result of being prepared to be so honest and to give up their peerages, they have become the only second-class peers in the United Kingdom. It seems that all these illogicalities stem from the simple desire of the Opposition, accepted by the Government, that we should have a Measure dealing with the Upper Chamber which does not touch the principle of peerage.
It was pointed out earlier that our system of descent of peerages is unusual compared with that applying to continental aristocracies, where the descent appears to apply to everybody. That point was weakened when one hon. Gentleman opposite who is literally honourable by prefix as well as by the terminology of this House—I refer to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—spoke shortly afterwards. One remembers that he would, under the present law, take precedence over every knight except a Knight of the Garter merely because he is the youngest son of a peer. He might possibly not take precedence over my right hon. Friend who is a Privy Councillor. There is something archaic in these rules and it is obvious that the situation needs altering.
The same right hon. Member who said this—the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West—went on to point out that peerages normally only descended through males. Would my right hon. Friend explain the effect of the Bill in relation to that famous United Nations Convention on the Status of


Women which, we were told, we could not ratify for various reasons, one being that the Upper Chamber was a body which did not conform to the requirements of that Convention? If a peerage descends only to an eldest son as distinct from an eldest daughter, that seems likely to be true.
Since we are, by this part of the Bill—which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne wishes to remove—retaining hereditary peers and since we are, by other parts of the Bill, retaining the possibility of creating hereditary peerages anew, would my right hon. Friend explain whether, as a result, it will still be true that we will be in breach of that United Nations Convention which the House of Lords has caused us to break in the past?
Would my right hon. Friend explain why, in this day and age, we are debating a Bill which is designed to allow the creation of new hereditary peerages and which carefully provides that those which are created shall entitle their holders to sit in the House of Lords as full members of the Upper Chamber? There may be arguments for treating gently existing peers by succession and I would be more lenient than some of my hon. Friends towards existing peers. They might as well continue to sit in the Lords until they die off. However, I would not allow this situation to be perpetuated. The hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) pointed out that the whole tendency of modern society is towards the creation of law based on the individual and the merits of the individual. I therefore see no reason for allowing this archaic system to continue. The hon. Member was the first to say this in explicit terms and I think he was entirely right.
Can there be any reason, apart from what may have been agreed privately between the two Front Benches, for the creation of new hereditary peerages? I know that Her Majesty's Government do not do this, but it would be possible for the Opposition to do so through the capacity to appoint peers by the Leader of the Opposition or if and when hon. Members opposite became the Government. Surely we have passed the time when we should wish to create peerages for the next few centuries. Surely in this

day and age we wish to create the possibility of people going to the House of Lords if they merit it and leave aside the question of whether their children merit it until they grow up and prove that they do.

Mr. Birch: I was fascinated by the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) as well as the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). They are so very well informed on precedents and on the peerage. The point about the exact precedence of the younger son of a viscount is one which very few on this side of the Committee would be able to answer. It is not easy, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Fife, West would know, for he would know the exact place in the table of precedence of a Master in Lunacy. I am sure that the two bedside books of the hon. Member are Burke's Peerage and the Almanac de Gotha. I doubt sometimes whether he has read anything else.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) pointed out with what alacrity so many noble Lords have leaped on the tumbrils. That is perfectly true, but many of them, including some hereditary peers, may assume that they will become voting peers. They may assume that their particular tumbril will not reach its destination until they are 72, and meanwhile ample free refreshments will be provided. That seems a perfectly reasonable proposition.
I have already declared my view that the Upper House should be indirectly elected by Members of this House on a regional basis. I suggest a possible compromise between this Amendment and the one which is to follow. The trouble about a nominee House is that the nominees would not have very much credit. They would be bound by the Whips who appointed them, as it were, to vote one way or another, or, in the case of the "Don't knows", not to make up their minds. They are the "captive balloons." I should think that they are bound to be pretty shop-spoiled when they rise into the air.
What shall we do about this? If this Amendment is not carried, as I hope it will not be, we shall have the hereditary


peers, who have built up a reputation for independence. We shall have independent peers who can speak and others who can vote. The Abbé Sieves, who produced some interesting resolutions, following the French Revolution, said that those who spoke could not vote and those who voted could not speak. Could not such a system be introduced? It would mean that only the independent-minded hereditary peers would speak and the "captive balloons" would vote. The advantage would be that they would often vote against their consciences, but they would not have to speak against their consciences. I should have thought that this had everything to recommend it. There would be an honest debate which would get across to the country and then the "captive balloons" would vote. I recommend that.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Amendment No. 1—if it is accepted by the Commmitee, as I hope it will not be—would totally eliminate the hereditary element from the other place. This was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) as a breach of contract and of faith. I shall not go into that moral argument and I do not want to anticipate later Amendments, although I think that there has been a certain amount of anticipation already.
My hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) referred in general terms to the sort of second Chamber which some of us would like to see if there is to be a change in the composition and powers of the House of Lords. I make no complaint about his not being present now, but I am sorry that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) is not in the Chamber. Some time ago we debated this matter privately by means of the Order Paper. The hon. Member put down an Early Day Motion, entitled "House of Lords future", which began with a quotation from Mr. Winston Churchill speaking in 1909 about the peaceful demise of the House of Lords, which Mr. Churchill then favoured.
I put down an Amendment to the hon. Member's Motion and quoted something else from Mr. Churchill in his Romanes Lecture of 1930, in which in discussing

the economic problem for Great Britain … as urgent, vital and dominant "—
as it still is—he commented that
there exists at the present time no constitutional machinery for dealing with it on its merits, with competent examination and without political bias and antagonisms ".
I suggested that
a bicameral Parliament is a necessary check on the power of the Executive, and its patronage which has increased and is increasing 
I went on to
urge all-party consideration should be given … to a reform
designed to put into another place representatives on a more systematic basis than we have at present of the economic religious, cultural and professional life of the realm together with the Princes of the Blood Royal—that is the subject being discussed in this debate—
and a proportion of the hereditary peerage elected by their order.
That enables me to make quite clear that I am opposed to Amendment No. 1. What is suggested in the Amendments which we have put on the Notice Paper would carry forward the idea which I described in my Amendment to the Motion proposed by the hon. Member for Fife, West. We would like to see an element of election, representative of interests—I hasten to tell the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that the trade unions would be one—an element of nomination, because we do not want the Upper House to be exclusively composed of great interests and estates and, thirdly, a traditional and prescriptive element of hereditary peers because we recognise, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South, who made an admirable speech, the force of continuity in the development of our constitution and our national life. What is more, there is some evidence from recent inquiries, although I do not attach too much importance to the polling of public opinion, that considerable working-class opinion in Britain desires the retention of a hereditary element in the British legislature.
7.0 p.m.
I do not suppose that we shall get our way and be able to sit down and shape a reformed second Chamber. If we cannot, I should have preferred to leave it as it is rather than to turn the Lords into what my hon. Friends have called a


House of nominees. This is repulsive to me. I do not think that it has anything to do with what the hon. Member for Walton called the advancement of democracy.
Amendment 1, if carried, and if certain other Amendments are not also carried, would convert a House of nominees with a residual hereditary element into a House totally nominated. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South quoted the very interesting article in The Times by Mr. Cecil King, who is a supporter, as we are, of bringing
into Parliament the powerful individuals and institutions at present outside.
Mr. King said this about turning the Lords into a House of nominees, or making it much more a House of nominees than it is at present:
The declining prestige of Parliament has been hastened by the use of the House of Lords by succeeding Prime Ministers as a refuse bin for ministerial failures, awkward back-benchers, party hacks and personal friends.
That has an element of truth in it.
I understand that as a result of all the clandestine meetings to which your predecessor in the Chair referred, Mr. Gourlay, there may be a separate Division—I think that is the least there should be—on Amendment 163, which concerns the princes of the blood royal. They have not been mentioned so far. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have."] They have been mentioned today, but they are not referred to in the White Paper.
As I understand, if the Government's proposals are enacted the princes of the blood royal will retain their seats, but not vote. They do not vote now, but they have the right to do so. I think that that would be the formal position. There would be no provision for their successors.
Here again, we touch upon the hereditary principle and the hereditary element in the Legislature. I do not take the view which has been taken by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and which has been argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, that an hereditary Upper House or an hereditary element in the House of Lords must be retained because, if it is not retained, it would strike at the monarchy. After all, there

are hereditary monarchies in other realms of the Commonwealth and hereditary monarchies in Europe and other parts of the world where there is no hereditary element in Parliament.

Mr. Ridley: Would not there be real danger in the monarchy's being appointed by the Prime Minister on the basis that is proposed in the Bill?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am not sure whether to answer that would be in order, but it is a suggestion which is entirely unthinkable and monstrous. In Belgium, for example, there is a monarchy and the Senate is elected and co-opted, but—here we come back to the Amendment about the princes—the king's son sits in the Belgian Senate of right.
I do not propose that we should welcome a return to the days when members of the Royal Family or the Royal Princes actually took a controversial part in debate and voted in the House of Lords, but I am anxious to preserve this traditional thread in the tapestry of the constitution. I do not see why Amendment No. 163 should be divided upon, because I hope that the Government will accept it. I repeat that I do not want any change in the present situation in which the Princes of the Blood Royal are entitled to sit and to vote, but never do so.
The hon. Member for Fife, West had done some interesting research about Princes of the Blood Royal or Royal Dukes who took part in debate and voted in the Upper House. I wonder that he did not tell us about the speech made by the Duke of Clarence on the Adultery Prevention Bill. I came across this in a book called "Royal Dukes" by a Liberal, Roger Fulford. It is appropriate that somebody should at least quote something by a Liberal, because the Liberal Party has believed so passionately in the reform of the other House and the removal of the hereditary element as a matter which brooks no delay. But where are the Liberals?
Roger Fulford has written this fascinating book, "Royal Dukes". He thought that the Duke of Clarence excelled himself by a lack of self-consciousness and tact on the Adultery Prevention Bill, which he opposed. This was a Bill which sought to make it impossible for


the guilty party to a divorce to marry. Mr. Fulford writes that the Duke
began by remarking that not even the Bishops were stronger opponents of adultery than he. The Bishops remembering that he was fresh from the arms of Mrs. Jordan, may well have thought his remark a little personal. He continued his speech unabashed, and his knowledge of the subject was so intimate and his views so humane that it was generally believed that Mrs. Jordon had written the speech for him.
I do not suggest that I want anything like this ever to be repeated in the Legislature. This is an undeferential age, but Amendment No. 163, in which I am supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, is an unashamedly deferential Amendment. I do not think that we in the House of Commons are over-generous towards the Royal Family. I am not referring to the occasional sneers and snide crypto-republicanism which we sometimes encounter in debate here, often disguised as a great zeal for public economy. Parliament and the taxpayer have driven a pretty hard bargain in the past with those whose exemplary devotion to the public weal and public service we have come to take for granted.
It is therefore, I repeat, in an unashamedly deferential mood and in a desire to recognise the part played by the Royal Family in the national life, that the traditional right, which they do not exercise, to sit and to vote in the House of Lords should be retained.

Mr. John Lee: As my right hon. Friend knows, I disapprove of the Bill altogether, and I have no intention of voting for it at any stage during its passage. I think it an irrelevant Bill. The proposal that any of it should come into force before the end of this Parliament is, in my view, grossly improper constitutionally. The House would be far better engaged on matters of greater relevance to the economy.
Having said that, however, I am presented with a dilemma. Should those of us who oppose the Bill aim to make it more or less ridiculous? It is a little difficult to make it more ridiculous than it is at present, so I suppose I take the alternative as my main motivation for signing Amendments which, at least in some measure, are designed to make it a little less ridiculous, if the Bill ever becomes law.
The Amendments in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and myself are aimed at taking the hereditary concept right out of our Parliamentary system. Several hon. Members have spoken of the absurdity of giving a person a right to have any kind of legislative franchise merely on the basis of paternity. If ever there was a reason for having primogeniture, there might just as well, on genetic grounds, be a reason for having ultimogeniture, as there is in some tribal systems and some obsolete forms of tenurial law.
There is just as much reason for giving anyone, male or female, who is descended from a peer of hereditary creation the same right, but only in recent years have peeresses in their own right been allowed to sit in the House of Lords, whether they received the title by descent or by first creation, and there have been very few of these.
The hereditary principle, in relation to legislation was for many reasons indefensible, but that is not the only ground on which I urge upon the Committee the Amendments which would take the hereditary principle out of the system. Unfortunately, the nature of the Bill is such that we cannot expunge the hereditary concept altogether. We cannot destroy it as a system of title or nomenclature. The most we can do is to make it as unattractive as possible, to deprive it of as many of its perquisites as we can, in the hope that, if this Government remain inhibited from abolishing it altogether, as they ought, at least any successor Government will have less reason than hitherto for creating any more peers.
Before I enlarge upon that, I remind my hon. Friend of what happened regarding baronets under the Attlee Government. He will recall that the Attlee Government refrained from creating any baronets, save, rather quaintly, the current Lord Mayor of the City of London. That did not destroy the existing baronetcy; it merely gave it an enhanced scarcity value, and as soon as the Conservatives returned to office in 1951, they promptly resumed the creation of that class of title. Therefore, no good had been done merely by abstaining from creating that title.
There is every reason to believe that, if the Government persist merely in


refraining from creating hereditary peerages, without actually abolishing them, the same will happen with hereditary peerages when there is another Conservative Government, and meanwhile the existing hereditary peerage, whether of first creation or by succession, will have acquired a certain enhanced scarcity value.
If the Government intended to indulge in mass creations such as we have had since 1964, it would have been far more sensible to create an absolute riot of marquises and dukes, helping thereby to ridicule the whole thing out of existence. However, as they have failed to do that, there remains a more sophisticated and, perhaps, more permanent way of proceeding, namely, to abolish the peerage altogether.
The Bill does not provide for that, and it would be outside the scope of the Long Title to put down Amendments to that effect. The least we can do is to put the peerage more and more in limbo, hoping that it will be less of an attraction to hold merely a title which carries with it no rights of franchise whatever. Although it is true that the direct legislative influence of the peerage has not been very great for quite a time, the possibility that one can be a Member for life of a luxurious club, which has the right of debate and also the right of vote, though with limited powers, is a not inconsiderable attraction to a fair number of people. In saying that, I am not forgetting that there are many peers of first creation who never take their seats in the other place at all.
7.15 p.m.
I remind the Committee of how ludicrous the hereditary peerage has become as a recognition of merit, quite apart from questions of its relevance to the Constitution. First, no non-royal dukedom, with one rather doubtful exception, has been created this century, and that doubtful exception concerned the royal marriage of one of Queen Victoria's granddaughters. Even Sir Winston Churchill did not have a dukedom, though I am told that the Letters Patent for a dukedom were drawn up but he decided of his own volition that it was not worth having.
Of the marquises created, a rank senior to the earldom which had been the normal reward of retiring Prime Ministers and a few other Cabinet Ministers of seniority and distinction, the last was that of a man call Willingdon, who is remembered as a rather undistinguished Viceroy of India, far less distinguished than a number of others who held that office but have not been granted that particular peerage, for example, Lord Wavell and Lord Mountbatten.
Let us consider the example of Lord Mountbatten; in many ways, I suppose, one of the most remarkable and versatile of men in public life this century. I imagine that that is an uncontroversial remark which hon. Members on both sides will accept. His father, a less distinguished man though in many ways a worthy one, received a marquisate. The present Earl Mountbatten who, one would have thought, if these things counted for anything at all, would have qualified for such distinction, has to put up with an earldom—presumably because the Attlee Government thought that earls were democratic and marquises were not.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Amendment which he supports would prevent Lord Mountbatten from even voicing his views in the House of Lords?

Mr. Lee: He never does voice them, so I do not think that that matters. He has never sought to voice his views in the House of Lords.
With the example of Lord Mountbatten in mind, I am reminded of others who gave distinguished service during the war years. On the other hand, those wretched and incompetent generals of the First World War, of whom Haig was the most notorious example, had earldoms. On the other hand, what was Lord Montgomery's reward in the Second World War? A man who, whatever my hon. Friends may think of his record on the question of South Africa, for example, or whatever hon. Members opposite may think of his views on Red China, is probably the greatest British general since the Duke of Wellington? He is given merely a viscountcy? One compares that with the earldoms given to Haig, to Jellicoe, or for that matter, to Beatty. To take naval examples, an earldom was given in the last war to Jellicoe and to Beatty,


but not to Cunningham. It all shows how absurd the thing is.
One can take other cases. We all know that a viscountcy has been the usual reward for a sacked Cabinet Minister. In other words, a man has a viscountcy the sooner the more incompetent a Minister he is, since his Prime Minister wants to get him out of the way. One would hardly regard that as reasonable ground for giving anyone a reward, and certainly no good reason for giving him an earlier reward.
My right hon. Friend the present Minister of Technology, who spent a long time trying to divest himself of the absurd encumbrance of his viscountcy, which he did not want, once used the analogy that, if we award a man the Victoria Cross, we do not expect his successors in title to wear it. Why, therefore, because a person is given a reward of distinction for civil public service, should his sons or daughters bear that honour merely because they happen to be the first of the litter, as Lloyd George so aptly described them?
I do not know how much hope I have of persuading my right hon. Friend to accept this clutch of Amendments on the question of succession. But I hope that the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West and I have advanced may make some impression on the Government, and that the timidity which has characterised them in dealing with such matters hitherto will perhaps at any rate abate in the future.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The principal of the Amendments would remove even the voices of the hereditary peerage from the Upper House. I would not claim more than an average working knowledge of the House of Lords, but during my 12 years in this House it has not escaped me that some valuable work is done in the Upper House, much of it by hereditary peers. Hereditary peerage has also made a great contribution to public life outside Parliament.
I do not like the idea of a wholly nominated House. We should examine what we shall lose from the Upper House if the principal Amendment is passed. The hereditary peerage will not be able to have any voice by virtue of its hereditary position in the Upper House.
I have in my hand a roll of the House of Lords. I shall not read it all, but there are certain members on that roll to whose qualities I should like to draw the attention of the Committee, hereditary peers not of the first creation but peers now seated in the House of Lords by virtue of their hereditary position who have rendered great distinction and public service, and are a valuable voice in Parliament.
After certain great officers of State and the Royal dukes, one comes to the Duke of Norfolk, who has a great position and has discharged his duties as Earl Marshal with distinction over many years. He needs no defence here, but he would be excluded. We have the Duke of Richmond, whose services to the motor industry and motor racing, an important aspect of national life, are well known. The Duke of Grafton's son, the Earl of Euston, is a very able custodian of our ancient buildings, and as the President of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings would be a valuable Member of the House of Lords, he is just the sort of person the Government would like to see in the Upper House. He is doing a valuable public service in that direction which would be available to Parliament but for the Amendment.
I cannot pass over the name of the Duke of Beaufort without saying how much all of the West Country values his services. He is Chancellor of our University in Bristol, and no Chancellor just in name but real Chancellor in every sense of the word, whose services to youth are well known and have been appreciated for many years.
The Duke of Bedford may be a figure of amusement to some, but his services to tourism and his attraction of paying visitors to this country are of immense value. It is true that he has not taken a large part in Parliamentary proceedings, but, with Britain lacking the wealth with which to carry on, the tourist industry is a valuable help. The Duke of Devonshire served as a Secretary of State, making a valuable contribution to public life. The Duke of Atholl, whom I count as a contemporary at Oxford, is one of the most energetic young Members of the Upper House. The Duke of Northumberland has a fine record of public service in his part of the country, and the present Duke of Wellington is an architect of considerable distinction.

Mr. John Lee: Would the hon. Gentleman like to mention the Duke of Argyll for his services to the divorce law?

Mr. Cooke: That is an intervention with which I will not trifle.
I am not making out a case that there are not some hereditary peers whose public services are perhaps less distinguished or valuable than others. I am merely making the case that there are a number of distinguished hereditary peers whose services in Parliament would be of great value to the country, and whose public services will be lost if the Amendment is carried.
There is a long list of marquesses. I shall mention only one, the Marquess of Exeter, whose services to the world of sport and to youth are well known. The Earl of Derby has been a leading figure in his part of the world for many years.
I might, in passing, mention the present disclaimed Earl of Sandwich, whose voice is a great loss to Parliament, and whom some of us would like to see included in a reformed House.
The service to the arts of the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres is also well known. We would lose his voice in Parliament. Lord Waldegrave, a Minister and an agriculturalist of considerable distinction, would also be excluded. Lord Bathurst might be put in the same category. There are the Earl of Harewood, with his musical talent, and the Earl of Verulam, who was a Member of this House and is an engineer of considerable distinction.
Lord Halsbury's services are valued even by the present Government in connection with decimal currency, and Lord St. Aldwyn, who is the grandson of a predecessor of mine in West Bristol, has rendered Parliamentary service over many years.
There is even the present Lord Attlee, a hereditary peer, who is surely a valuable Labour voice in the other House. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is probably not Labour."] It is true that certain hereditary peers lose the party enthusiasms of their fathers, but the thought is there.
Lord Esher is a distinguished architect. Lord Brentford is active in the world of motoring, protecting the interests of the

motorists, and Lord Maugham is a distinguished writer.
I could give a long catalogue, but I will not. Some of these noble hereditary Lords should receive at least a passing mention in the debate.
The world of music is represented in the form of Lord Somers, and there is Lord Auckland's distinguished work for youth.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can continue with his catalogue of reference to Members of the Upper House, because other Members of the Committee may wish to answer some of his points and come up against the Standing Order which precludes them from casting any reflection on Members of another House.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: Surely my hon. Friend is entitled, under the rules of order, to argue that hereditary peers should be maintained in effective membership because they include large numbers of people of high quality? Surely he should not be debarred from doing that because other hon. Members might be tempted to go out of order in answering him? Surely, Mr. Gourlay, you would prevent it if there were such a breach of order?

The Deputy Chairman: Order. It is not entirely out of order for the hon. Gentleman to pursue his catalogue, but it puts temptation in the way of other hon. Members, and it might be unwise for him to pursue it at great length.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I take it, Mr. Gourlay, that you are ruling that my hon. Friend is in order, though you have expressed an opinion as to his wisdom. Is that the correct interpretation of your Ruling?

The Deputy Chairman: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has made a correct appreciation of this point.

Mr. Barnett: May I take it, Mr. Gourlay, as we are listening to this catalogue of dukes, earls, and so on, who might be fitting members of the other House, that I would be in order if I listed a series of aldermen and councillors from my constituency who would be equally fitting for the job?

7.30 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: That would depend upon the relevance of the observations which the hon. Gentleman made.

Mr. Cooke: I cannot say that I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Gourlay, because, frankly, I do not understand it.
I do not wish to detain the Committee over long, or to read out the whole rôle of peers and use it as an obstructive instrument in the debate. I have mentioned the names of a very small fraction of those hereditary Members of the Upper House who have distinguished service to their credit and who would bring distinction to any Parliamentary assembly. I had, in any case, nearly finished. But those I have mentioned could well defend themselves whatever any hon. Member opposite might care to say about them.
I have spoken about the arts. The present Lord Methuen is a Royal Academician, President of the West of England Academy and a painter of considerable merit. He even produced the House of Commons Christmas card last year. The present Lord O'Hagan is one of the most active younger Members. A person of his rare experience and enthusiasm would hardly find his way into the Upper House except by the hereditary principle. The present Lord Grenfell is also much interested in youth work.
Lord Kennet is that rare bird, an hereditary Socialist peer, but all the same a valuable Minister, much interested in the preservation of amenities and ancient buildings and a valuable ally to those on this side of the House of Commons who care about these matters. Young Lord Windlesham is experienced in the world of television. These are just a few. There is also Lord Sandford, a clergyman in the House of Lords and not a bishop, perhaps an advantage.

Mr. Edwin Brooks: On a point of order. Do I understand that the rules of the House permit a virtually endless catalogue, although a select one, of peers whose qualities are estimable, as an argument in favour of maintaining an hereditary peerage, whereas they do not permit an equally almost endless catalogue of those who have been suffering for many years from too much hereditary in-breeding?

The Deputy Chairman: It might not lead to a very good debate, but the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) is in order.

Mr. Cooke: There was never any intention in my mind to give an endless catalogue. I have given but a brief selection and I have only one more name to give.
I was about to mention the young Lord Trefgarne, the second baron, whose father sat in this House in various parts of the Left-wing, if I can put it that way. I gather that the late Lord Trefgarne belonged to a number of parties, but he was none the worse for that. His young son is one of the most enthusiastic and active members of another place. He is another example of the young men who would not have found their way to Parliament but for the hereditary principle. The thoughts of these young men are surely of some value in Parliament. I do not intend to detain the Committee for very long and my speech would have been shorter if hon. Members opposite had not sought to interrupt and protest.
The value of the contributions and experience of the people I have mentioned would be lost to Parliament if the Amendment were carried. Perhaps the Committee might care to reflect on this and to think about how one could hope to represent such a wide spectrum of interest and public service in the Upper House by any other method.

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair.]

No doubt the Government will say that the process of selection—nomination by the Prime Minister—could achieve the same thing, but I do not believe that that would be the case. For a start, it is bound to happen that, on the whole, older men will be selected. Very few in active middle age and no young people will be selected. There will always be a tendency for the Government of the day to go for establishment figures, the men who have worked their way up in their professional associations, probably very worthy men some but not all particularly sparkling in their approach to life. It will be a very dull House if it is entirely nominated.

The Committee should reflect on some of those noble Lords I have mentioned. There are others hon. Members can recall to mind. Of course, some noble


Lords have let down the side and I often wish that some of the glossy magazines lying about the place were not produced because they draw attention to some of the less fortunate antics of some Members of the Upper House—and, indeed, of Members of the House of Commons, because we, too, have our failings. If the Committee cares to reflect for a moment, I think it will agree that a great deal of value will be lost to Parliament if the hereditary element is entirely removed from the Upper House, simply because the Government's proposals will not replace it by anything half so good.

Mr. Michael Foot: Some of us who have listened to the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) may have misunderstood, particularly if they had not been following the whole debate, that his speech was addressed to supporting the Government's position, and the Government, I think, should acknowledge the suport they have had from him. The list he read out were all names of men whose services will be retained in the Upper House under the Government's proposals. I do not wish to cast any reflection on any individual, but as I listened to the list I was reminded of what Junius said when he saw the list of a Tory Administration in the eighteenth century. He said that it read to him like a satire on all governments. In one sense, the recital of the hon. Member was a satire on all our constitutional arrangements. Some of us would have been very happy if we could have said that at any rate this part of the farce was going to come to an end with the proposals for reform of the other place, but that is not to be the case.
Many of us are in great difficulties in this debate, because, of course, those who are root and branch abolitionists like myself do not favour a nominated Chamber nor a hereditary Chamber. It is difficult for us to present the whole of our case according to these Amendments. So my right hon. Friend may well say to us, "If that is the case, why do you not just keep quiet?"

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): Oh, no— not to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Foot: My right hon. Friend has to bear responsibility for his misdeeds today.

I think that it is very hard on him in many respects. He is the most naturally productive of all the members of the Government. He does not need to take any political fertility pill to produce the kind of legislative quintuplets which he has given us. I think that is about the right number, although, looking at him at the moment, there may be more to come. As far as I am concerned, the sooner we get on to the rest of the litter, the better.
However, as I have listened to the debate, I have found an argument as to why I should intervene. I am not very enthusiastic about these Amendments. My hon. Friends the Members for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and I have put down new Clause 6—"Exclusion of peers by succession"—which would deal with the situation effectively, simply and clearly. It does not meet our general attitude to the Bill, but it would have a satisfactory result. If we were to pass the Amend-men, moved so peremptorily by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), we would upset the package and the reception of the Bill in the other place would be slightly less enthusiastic, and it is even conceivable that there might be a few recruits to our side.
Tactically, therefore, the wise course for those who are opposed to the Bill, for whatever reason, would be to vote with us on each of these Amendments, even those who wish to sustain the hereditary principle and who wish to kill the Bill, for this is the best way in which to do that. If we were to wipe the varnish from the rest of the Bill, what would be left would be a simple, crude vulgar, nominated Chamber, a proposal which might even be thrown out in the other place, although I doubt it.
I might even ask for support from my right hon. Friend on this occasion. I assure him that the enthusiasm for the Bill in the other place is so overwhelming that the peers would swallow anything so long as they could keep the power, which is what they want. They would prefer to have all this sweetening which my right hon. Friend has given to them as a result of the negotiations and they want to keep this hereditary part if they can, and they want all the fancy work as well, but what they want more is the central power which the


Government propose to leave the other place, and therefore even the Government might not be too alarmed if the Amendment were passed.
I see that I am carrying the whole Committee with me; the Government can accept the Amendment. At any rate, I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services cannot produce a single argument for continuing the remains of the hereditary principle which are left in the Bill, apart from the bargain which he made with right hon. Gentlemen opposite in order to get the Bill presented at all.
As a root and branch abolitionist, I have a simple remedy, but the difficulty which I have found is that we have to apply our minds to the marginal question of whether a nominated House is better than a hereditary House. I must say that this has been a very tender balance all though the evening. Whenever the spectacle of hereditary peers is presented lo us, I veer in favour of the nominated Chamber and, whenever the evils of the nominated Chamber are emphasised, I am forced to consider the possibilities and advantages of retaining the hereditary principle. This is a most awkward dilemma.
When I heard the hon. Member for Bristol, West, I became passionately in favour of nomination—for a few minutes at any rate—but when I think of some of the others up there, particularly some of those with whom we have had to deal, I veer away from real peers, or life peers, or any new breed of peers. Those are the people to whom, under the Government's proposals, we are to surrender our obligations, a thousand years of history into these quivering hands, the Cromers, the Cobbolds the Caccias, the Brookes, the Bridges, the Hankeys and the Pankeys. Those are the people who want the dominant power in our constitutional arrangements.
I am absolutely staggered that my right hon. Friend should have introduced such a proposal. There may be a case for having the system which was proposed by the Abbé Sieyés, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch). If such a proposal were inserted in the Bill nobody would notice it. At least it would introduce a note of constitutional rigour into the whole ramshackle arrangement. Therefore, if my

right hon. Friend proposes what might be called the Abbé Sieyés Amendment, I shall vote for that.
7.45 p.m.
I want the Committee to apply itself properly to the discussions which we have in Committee. We all know that the Bill which we are supposed to send to the other place was ridiculous to start with, but if we can pile on a few more absurd Amendments, if we can push on to this ship a few more cargoes which are calculated to sink it, we will have done a good night's work and we will send such a Bill to the other place that even the worms there will begin to turn and even those who are already slavering at the lips for the extra power which it is supposed to give them for the next 20 or 30 years may take a different view.
We may make jokes about this, because the whole thing is ridiculous, but in fact it is an extremely serious matter. What we are doing is to ensure that for the next 20, 30 or 40 years the constitutional balance will be heavily weighted on the side of reaction, the elderly and the Establishment, those who in the main have exhausted the contribution which they can make to the political life of the country and who wish to sustain all the old institutions.
That is not what my right hon. Friend really wants. He is a born reformer; he wants to change things; he does not want to alter the constitution in this fashion; but that is what he is doing, and I am very sorry to see it. What we have to do is to rescue him from his own errors and to ensure that he can triumph over this mistake and go ahead to all the future triumphs which he may have ahead. Therefore, every hon. Member who votes for the Amendment will be helping to wreck the Bill and helping to save the Government.

Mr. Birch: I think that you would agree, Sir Myer, that it would be only right for the Liberal point of view to be expressed [Laughter.] Here I stand surrounded by eager, young, well-washed faces. Unfortunately, they have not been bold enough to speak; so I shall say what I think the Liberals would be saying.
The Liberals would say that many members—I should not like to say how many, but some hundreds—of another place are there because of an implied


contract with the Liberal Party into which they entered with certain considerations to apply, to put it in a nice way. Having entered into that contract, and having given certain solid advantages to those who supported them at the time, the Liberals would say that it was absolutely wrong that those men who supported the Liberal Party with due consideration should be deprived of the rights of office.

Mr. Crossman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervene briefly to state the view of the Government. I do so now partly because of the temptation to intervene after the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who spoke with his usual brilliance. He has a quality, which I sometimes share, of speaking with simplifying candour. He told us willingly what he was up to—he was having good fun—and he said that he did not believe in reforming the other place and he therefore asked all hon. Members to join him in supporting what he consciously described as a wrecking Amendment. It was a very nice speech.
Those who are concerned with the reform of the other place, with the rights and wrongs of it and what should and should not be done, have to consider the group of Amendments before us, which we have now considered for a long time. It might be convenient if, first, I summarised the point of the Clause. Its object is to exclude from a reformed House of Lords all hereditary peers who may succeed to peerages in future.
The point of this group of Amendments, I will not go into them in detail, or refer to their drafting, is to exclude future peers by succession from the reformed House immediately and completely, and to remove the provisions under which those who are Members, or entitled to be Members at the time when the reform comes into effect would be allowed to remain as non-voting Members. This is an important Clause and it has been well worth lengthy discussion.
To some extent I agree with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), but I would say that one has to begin somewhere in the Bill and it is logical to start with the principle of removing the hereditary element from the House of Lords.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) asked me, in all sincerity, why was there a Clause in the Bill which not only suggested that hereditary peers might be created in future, but made provision for such a possibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) also asked this question. He wanted to have explained to him why the Government accepted the view that it was not their task on this occasion to abolish the peerage. This was not a matter of agreement or disagreement between the parties,—there was no potentiality of disagreement between the two sides.
The conference was established to study the reform of the institutions and composition of the other place, not to study the peerage, not to deal with it. The Bill has been drafted and framed on the assumption that, after it has been passed, a peerage will continue and the Prime Minister will be entitled to create both life and hereditary peerages, although from our side it is unlikely that such a nomination of the latter kind will take place. However, the Bill makes provision for the possibility.
The second matter put to me by the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) is one which I hope that he will not press to a Division. From his own point of view that may be misunderstood. Technically, his Amendment is defective. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West was correct. It is, strictly speaking, meaningless, but I do not want to be niggling. However, the phrase "Prince of the Blood Royal" really means nothing, and it would mean nothing at all if it were passed. I understand his intentions, and can tell him that under the Government's proposals all members of the Royal Family who are at present created peers, would be eligible to take voting membership, but I think it would be extremely unlikely that they would wish to do so. As to the future, all members of the Royal Family who are created peers will be eligible for voting membership of the House, but, again, it would be expected that they would opt for a non-voting rôle.
This issue remains completely unaffected, as the rest of the problem of the peerage does, by the Bill. We have not affected the power of the Crown to create a hereditary peer; we have not affected


the relationship of the Royal Princes or any other member of the Royal Family. They will be entitled to vote, but will not normally do so. I hope that the hon. Member will accept that assurance.
I deal now with the single remaining substantial issue. Let me explain briefly why the Government and those who support this reform regard the defeat of this Amendment as essential. It is true that it will be perfectly consistent for someone who was pledged, as we were at the election, to remove the hereditary element and reduce the effective powers of the Lords, to do it in such a way that in future every hereditary peer, every peer by succession, would automatically and totally be excluded from the Lords. That would be fully compatible with the principles laid down in our election manifesto. It is equally true that it is compatible with the manifesto to do it in the way we have chosen.
I might be asked why we have chosen this way, why have we said that we will have a two-tier House in which peers by succession who are there now will be entitled to serve their life out there if they wish, although their sons will not be able to do so? Why have we tapered off the presence of the hereditary principle in the Lords instead of cutting it off clean? It is a matter of taste. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading does not have exactly the same taste as myself in this. When I look at the work in the other place I will not deny that the hereditary peers add an element of youth and energy which it would miss. Many of them will become life and voting peers for that reason, but it is true that others will go.
I was prepared to reach an agreement, and it was part of the agreement we reached on both sides, that this would be a fair and reasonable method of dealing with the problem. Having reached an agreement, as often happens, the agreement was, I thought, better than that which either side had brought to the conference. I have no doubt whatever about the desirability of this part of the Bill, and the need to maintain the structure, and therefore of seeing these Amendments defeated.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Myer Galpem): Order. The right hon. Member has sat down.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: This is the first time I have uttered on the Bill or the White Paper. I share the views expressed in the opening sentences of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee), but I cannot agree quite so strongly with what he went on to say. I regard this as an atrociously bad, irrelevant Bill. The speech we have just heard by the Secretary of State for Social Services shows how he is trying to do two incompatible things at once. He has endeavoured to show to us that this was not a peerage Bill, but a Bill to reform the House of Lords.
The more the right hon. Gentleman went on the more abundantly clear it became that what he was seeking to do will really make a peer in the true sense of the word meaningless. We are starting from completely the wrong end in this matter. I share with the right hon. Gentleman the characteristic that I am an ardent Parliamentary reformer. On this matter I would say that I was holier than he. The pity of all this seems to be that we have got so indoctrinated with the theory that we in Parliament are the only people who can put forward suggestions as to how Parliament can be reformed that, as a result, we do not dare do what we ought to do.
We shall never make sense, with this Bill or any other dealing with the reform of the House of Lords or our own House, unless we get down to an objective study of what sort of Parliament is necessary in the body politic of today and then decide what powers are necessary for it to have to do its job, and who should have them. Until we work on those lines I say a murrain on legislation of this kind.
I would bring a little atomic argument to this one, perhaps to the surprise of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he knows what a spectral shift reactor is. It is one which is moderated by a mixture of heavy and light water. As the fuel is burned up the mixture is progressively diluted with light water. This changes the degree of moderation and releases excess reactivity until at the end of the useful life of the


core the moderator consists mainly of light water.
If the right hon. Gentleman would substitute the word "talker" for the word "water" in that sentence he will find that it is not untypical of Parliament today. I would say that we are too far into this Parliament to enter into this sort of exercise, and I propose to take no further interest in the Bill whatever.

Mr. Powell: Might I intervene again, briefly, to take up two points arising out of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. Referring to royal peers, I understood him to say that the position of royal peers in another place would not in practice be affected by the Bill since, as peers of first creation, in future they would still have a right to sit, although not necessarily to vote. I wonder whether this is necessarily true, since I think I am right in saying that certain of the royal peerages are not conferred but are automatically inherited—for example, I believe, the Earldom of Chester. If that be so, the right hon. Gentleman would not quite be accurate in saying that the position of royal peers would be unaffected in practice by the Bill.
8.0 p.m.
The second point is perhaps more substantial and arises out of what the right hon. Gentleman said about the continuation of a non-Parliamentary peerage, possibly life, but possibly also hereditary, after hereditary peerage had ceased to form part of Parliament. The idea of a peerage continuing in vacuo outside Parliament after its function in Parliament has been destroyed is an abomination. There have been many references in the debate to continental aristocracies. I believe that hon. Members on both sides, whatever their view of the Bill and the present situation, would agree that our aristocracy, however one defines it historically and at present, compares very favourably with that of any other country.
One of the reasons for that—perhaps the real reason—is that it has to this day been a functional aristocracy. There have been duties and functions associated with title and with hereditary succession. It would be utterly to pervert the notion of peerage if we were to sever title, and what social status there may come with

title, from any working function in the Constitution. More than that, the peerage of this country is, in a sense, quite different from the peerage of any other country, a Parliamentary peerage. It is true that there are some relics of pre-Parliamentary times in our present peerage, the survival of what are called the baronies by writ, which pre-date the Parliamentary peerage of the fourteenth and subsequent centuries.
However, the peerage as we know it, the functioning and working peerage of this country during the last 500 years, has been an emanation of Parliament. It has been created to serve in Parliament, and its status has rested upon its function in Parliament. Speaking only for myself, if the Bill or anything like it goes through, although I appreciate that the talks and the background to the Bill were not concerned with anything non-Parliamentary, it would be contrary to the spirit of the historic peerage if it should survive as an effete floating institution with no roots, no standing place and no function.

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) for his stimulating and interesting contribution.
On the first point, the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. There is a group of peers of the kind to which he refers. In those cases, I understand from my brief that for their lifetime they would serve as non-voting peers. A certain number would die out. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for enabling me to point that out for the record.
Secondly, we shall have plenty of time to debate some of the larger issues about the future of the peerage. I was careful to say that in this Bill we did not think it was for us to determine the attitude of future Prime Ministers to the problem of the hereditary peerage; we had to leave the matter open. We do not create hereditary peers. Therefore, they would die out. On the other hand, if there were those who wanted to do so the Bill leaves that decision to be taken later. Not all right hon. and hon. Members opposite would fully agree with what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said about the peerage, but,


whether they agree or not, the issue of peerage has been deliberately left open and not decided in the Bill.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am sorry that the Secretary of State did not give way to me earlier, because I wished to ask him a question arising out of what he said.
The right hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the energy and youth of certain hereditary peers whose services we enjoy in the other House. He conceded that with the wiping out of the hereditary principle the services of these young people would be lost to the Upper House. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Perhaps he will allow me to finish what I wish to say and then he can give a complete reply. I suppose that they might continue to have a voice and no vote, but in the fullness of time they would be excluded altogether unless they were nominated for life peerages.
I wonder how the Government of the day would be able to pick and choose. It would be very difficult and hazardous to get tie young element in by that process. How would a Labour Government, perhaps disinclined to consider hereditary peers for selection, introduce an element of young men, or young women for that matter, into the Upper House? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would answer that question if he finds the others somewhat distasteful. How will young life peers be discovered by a future Labour Administration. Surely we are hoping that we shall not have an Upper House consisting entirely of old men.

Mr. Sheldon: I was surprised at the tribute which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) paid to what he called the functioning and working peerage over the past 500 years. That is not how I interpret it. The functioning and hard-working peers were in the House of Lords to protect their own interests. When they worked hard, they did so, by speaking for perhaps a few hours a year, to make sure that the laws of the land protected those interests. I see no reason to pay the sort of tribute which the right hon. Gentleman paid to people acting in this way.
If the right hon. Gentleman was saying that after 500 years the place is coming to an end and that it is right to

pay some tribute, I might be more generous, because, as Doctor Johnson said about an epitaph, in these matters one is not inevitably on oath. If I were to write an epitaph, I would concede that among the aristocracies throughout Europe ours was perhaps a shade more enlightened than most. Perhaps their best quality would be that they knew when to retreat and did not fight to the last ditch. This is why we still have them—because they had enough wisdom not to do that. I would find it hard to say very much more by way of tribute to the other place.

Mr. Onslow: Would the hon. Gentleman reflect on how high Lord North's stock now stands?

Mr. Sheldon: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there were some peers who were more incompetent than others, I agree with him entirely. That is invariably the case, as with any body of people.
Amendment No. 103 is a probing Amendment which seeks to clarify subsection (4), which deals with the situation which arises when the
holder of a hereditary peerage … may by notice in writing given to the Lord Chancellor within one year after the commencement of this Act, disclaim his membership of the House of Lords ".
I am not sure why he should be allowed one year after the commencement of the Act to disclaim his membership. If he does not write, his membership presumably, will continue until the end of that Parliament. Why should he not be able to disclaim? We should be delighted if successionist peers who did not wish to attend the House of Lords would be prepared not to assert their rights. It would reduce the numbers and the amount of speaking. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will elucidate this point.

Mr. Crossman: The aim of the Clause is to give one year after the passing of the Bill so that a peer would have the right to disclaim, but that he should be excluded from the possibility of choosing a convenient moment in his political career, such as a by-election, and finding himself a right to become a commoner in this way. It was generally felt that, although this period should be given, after this the Clause should lapse.

Mr. Will Griffiths: My right hon. Friend, in response to the short intervention made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), said that the Bill left open the possibility of a future Government, if they so desired, creating a new crop of hereditary peers. The Bill is based upon party discussions and, therefore, contains a considerable degree of compromise, but what was said by my right hon. Friend convinces me of the absurdity of these whole proceedings.
My right hon. Friend said that we are all completely opposed to the hereditary principle, we have created no hereditary peers and it is unlikely that we shall create any. My right hon. Friend, who is a member of the Government, is seeking to bring about considerable constitutional reforms because he has accepted compromises which have arisen from all-party discussion. Together with his colleagues in the Government he is abdicating responsibility and is not reforming the other place in the way in which he tells the House of Commons the whole if this side would wish. The result is that we shall have a protracted Committee stage, at the end of which important matters of principle, which my right hon. Friend says are accepted on these benches, will be achieved only in part and for an indefinite period. That is the most extraordinary exhibition of government that I have seen for a long time.

Sir John Rodgers: Will the Secretary of State say whether it is true that one of the major reasons for the inclusion of Clause 1 is that it allows the second Chamber to go on under the title of the House of Lords? If we are to reform Parliament we must first deter mine whether we want a second Chamber If we do, we must determine what its powers should be and how it should be elected or selected. It was a macabre dance of death that the House of Lords will go on, the hereditary peers being allowed to live out their lives in dismal splendour under the pretence that the principle of heredity has been abolished. A strong case could be made out for a legislative chamber not being composed on the basis of who one's father was. The Clause is the most disingenuous that I have seen in any Bill. The other place

will still be called the House of Lords. Many life peers will be created, but would it not be far better to create senators? Why go through the mumbo-jumbo of creating life peers and calling their sons Honourable? This is the most reactionary proposal to have come from a Government of any persuasion since the end of the war. It is appalling that the Government Front Bench should be so reactionary—

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Mendelson: Both Front Benches.

Sir J. Rodgers: My Front Bench are not as revolutionary as I should like them to be. The Labour Party pretends to be the party of revolution, the great reformists, looking at things afresh and bringing modernisation into our constitutional and national life. This is the opposite. It is a subterfuge to enable the other place still to be called the House of Lords—

Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman must not overlook his own Front Bench in this. These were bargaining negotiations. It is his side that insists on these things and, unfortunately, my right hon. Friend agreed with them.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Gentleman must also not overlook the terms of the Amendment under discussion.

Sir J. Rodgers: If I may respond to that intervention, I do not exonerate my right hon. Friends, I have the greatest admiration for them, but I can think of no occasion when the country has benefited from the consensus of opinion between the two Front Benches. Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the Bill, particularly at Clause 1, as it is an insult to this House and to the Upper House.

Mr. English: Will my right hon. Friend answer the question I asked earlier? The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) pointed out the peculiarities of our system of inheritance of peerage; I asked my right hon. Friend whether this conflicted with the United Nations Convention on the Status of Women and caused us for a long time not to ratify, and whether the Bill


will still be in conflict with that Convention merely because our system of inheritance is biased towards males?

Mr. Sheldon: Mr. Sheldon rose—

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 45, Noes 207.

Division No. 64.]
AYES
[8.18 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mendelson, John


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Newens, Stan


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Orme, Stanley


Barnett, Joel
Henig, Stanley
Paget, R. T.


Bessell, Peter
Hooson, Emlyn
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Howie, W.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Brooks, Edwin
Kenyon, Clifford
Sheldon, Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Kerr, Russell (Feitham)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lee, John (Reading)
Tomney, Frank


Davits, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Dickens, James
Lomas, Kenneth
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Edelman, Maurice
Lubbock, Eric



Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Faulds, Andrew
McNamara, J. Kevin
Mr. William Hamilton and


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marquand, David
Mr. Eric Heffer.


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)






NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Ennals, David
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lipton, Marcus


Archer, Peter
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Loughlin, Charles


Bence, Cyril
Eyre, Reginald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fernyhough, E.
MacArthur, Ian


Biffen, John
Finch, Harold
McBride, Neil


Biggs-Davison John
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCann, John


Binns, John
Ford, Ben
MacColl, James


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Fowler, Gerry
McGuire, Michael


Bishop, E. S.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackie, John


Blackburn, F.
Freeson, Reginald
Maclennan, Robert


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gardner, Tony
Mallalicu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Manuel, Archie


Boardman Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Marten, Neil


Body, Richard
Goodhart, Philip
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Boyden, James
Goodhew, Victor
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mawby, Ray


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gower, Raymond
Mayhew, Christopher


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gray, Dr Hugh (Yarmouth)
Millan, Bruce


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Buchan, Norman
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Monro, Hector


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bullus, Sir Eric

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hannan, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Carmichael, Neil
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Charnnon, H. P. G.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Moyle, Roland


Chapman, Donald
Hastings, Stephen
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Coe, Denis
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel



Coleman, Donald
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Murray, Albert


Conlan, Bernard
Higgins, Terence L.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Cooke Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Neave, Airey


Crosland, RS. Hn. Anthony
Hilton, W. S.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, s.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hobden, Dennis
Oakes, Gordon


Crouch, David
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ogden, Eric


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hoy, James
O'Malley, Brian


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Onslow, Cranley


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oram, Albert E.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hunter, Adam
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hynd, John
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Oswald, Thomas


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Delargy, Hugh
Janner, Sir Barnett
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Dell, Edmund
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dempsey, James
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Doig, Peter
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dunnett, Jack
Jopling, Michael
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kimball, Marcus
Pentland, Norman


Eadie, Alex
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Eden, Sir John
Lane, David
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lawson, George
Probert, Arthur


English, Michael
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Quennell, Miss J. M.




Randall, Harry
Snow, Julian
Whitlock, William


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilkins, W. A.


Rees, Merlyn
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Rentan, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Summers, Sir Spencer
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Swingler, Stephen
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Richard, Ivor
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Urwin, T. W.
Winnick, David


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Waddington, David
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Russell, Sir Ronald
Wainwright, Edwin (Deame Valley)
Woof, Robert


Scott-Hopkins, James
Wallace, George
Younger, Hn. George


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Ward, Dame Irene



Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Slater, Joseph
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. Charles Grey and


Small, William
White, Mrs. Eirene
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

Mr. English: I beg to move formally, for the purposes of a Division, Amendment No. 2—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Not at this stage. It will come in its proper place immediately after we dispose of the next group of Amendments.
The next Amendment is No. 72 and, grouped with it, are Amendments Nos. 68, 74, 73 and New Clause 12—

Mr. Jopling: On a point of order, Sir Myer. Your predecessor in the Chair, the Chairman of Ways and Means, told us at the beginning of the debate that he would make a statement about the Preamble and the point in our proceedings at which we could debate it, whether we could amend it, and various other matters. We have been told since that discussions are taking place on these points.
I can understand that it may have been difficult for Mr. Irving to make a statement to us before the end of the previous debate. However, hon. Members will remember what he said, and it is to be hoped that he will be able as soon as possible to make a statement about the outcome of the discussions which he has had in private with various members of the Committee. It will be very difficult for us to continue unless we have that statement as soon as possible.

The Temporary Chairman: That is hardly a point of order. However, I was present when the Chairman of Ways and Means occupied the Chair, and I heard him make reference to the Preamble. I am not the occupant of the Chair who gave that promise. I dare say that he is busily engaged in preparing his statement. But, whatever the hon. Gentleman

may think, he may rest assured that the Chairman of Ways and Means will implement the promise that he made earlier.

Mr. Onslow: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. Would not the Committee be helped if you reconsidered that decision? We were advised earlier by Mr. Irving that the selection of Amendments was provisional. We pointed out that, once we had embarked on the first group of Amendments, that ceased to be a provisional selection and became definitive. If we are not to have a statement on this subject, which has a bearing on the grouping of Amendments, as we come to each succeeding group, the selection ceases to be provisional and becomes definitive. It would be to the advantage of the Committee if we could be told when Mr. Irving will be making his statement.

The Temporary Chairman: The selection of Amendments is a matter entirely at the discretion of the Chair. In no way can the present occupant of the Chair brook any criticism of that selection.
In the meantime, I am concerned to proceed with the business before us, and I suggest—

Mr. Sheldon: On a point of order. I am not sure, Sir Myer, whether you were present at the time that Mr. Irving made that statement.

The Temporary Chairman: I have said that I was present when it was made.

Mr. Sheldon: That helps considerably, because you will recall that the Chairman stated that he would be returning to make a decision on this matter. You have said that you have not heard about the present situation. If you had heard that he made this decision, clearly you would be right in carrying it out. I submit that


if you have not heard of the decision, the best way to handle the matter might be to find out what that decision is.

The Temporary Chairman: The Chairman of Ways and Means will be returning to the Chair very shortly. It will be for him—as a matter of fact, he is here—when he takes over the Chair to indicate whether he has a statement to make. In the meantime, we will proceed with, I hope, Amendments Nos. 72. 68, 73, 74 and new Clause 12.

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of Order. As the Chairman is present in the Chamber, may we ask whether he can give us at this precise moment the result of the discussions that have taken place? We can then happily go on with the business. If we do not get such a statement, and the Committee proceeds, it will proceed very uneasily indeed.

The Temporary Chairman: The point raised by the hon. Member will be dealt with in due course. I think that there is undue haste in asking a decision to be made on this point. I ask hon. Members to bear with me. But, as it happens to coincide with the time that the Chairman of Ways and Means is to resume the Chair, I gladly give over—not through any sense of defeat, but because I wish to observe the timetabling.

[MR. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order. I wonder, now that you have rejoined us, Mr. Irving, whether you are in a position to tell us anything further on the subject of the Preamble about which earlier this afternoon, you promised us a statement?

The Chairman: I apologise for keeping the Committee waiting. I had hoped that I might have a little more time. I have taken the opportunity to consult at least one or two of the hon. Members who raised the matter to be sure that I was seized of the point. I ask the indulgence of the Committee to leave a fuller statement, if necessary, until later.
I ought, first, to say that I am completely bound by Standing Order No. 45:
In a committee on a bill, the preamble shall stand postponed until after the consideration of the clauses and of any schedules.

So it is ultra vires for me to go beyond that Standing Order.
On the other hand, the Committee may like to look at my selection. Amendment No. 140, in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) seeks to amend a Clause in the Bill. The right hon. and learned Member also has an Amendment down to the Preamble which, in my provisional selection, I had decided to allow to be debated with Amendment No. 140, So, while the Chair cannot rule on Amendments to the Preamble or to other parts of the Bill before proper consideration can be given, the Committee will see that the principle is accepted by the existing selection.
If a Member puts down an Amendment to a Clause and also an Amendment to the Preamble, the Chair will consider calling these together, thereby allowing, at the same time as the debate on the Clause, a debate on that section of the Preamble.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I take it, Mr. Irving, that the same Ruling will apply to Amendment No. 128, when we reach it, which is similar to Amendment No. 67 on page 1068, which seeks to amend the Preamble? I take it that you will allow a discussion both on the Amendment and on that part of the Preamble?

The Chairman: I am not quite clear about the point that the hon. Member raises with me. Amendment No. 128 has been provisionally selected with new Clause 11, which is not concerned with the Preamble, as I understand. But if the hon. Member puts down an Amendment to the Preamble which relates to the Amendments on the Notice Paper, I should consider selecting it for debate with the Amendments already selected.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Mr. Irving, it is possible that we shall not reach Amendment No. 128 today, so you may have time to consider this in the morning. This Amendment refers to the election of representatives of science, technology, the arts, industry, and so on, and new Clause 11 sets out how those representatives should be elected. I have also tabled an Amendment to the Preamble, referring to the same point, and I take it that we shall be able to discuss that new Clause in conjunction with Amendment No. 108.

The Chairman: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I now understand the point that he is making.
The hon. Member's Amendment to the Preamble has not been selected. As I said, the Chair cannot, in advance, give an indication of its selection, nor can it give an undertaking to select an Amendment to the Preamble, but, from the selection, it is procedurally possible for an Amendment to a Clause and an Amendment to the Preamble to be selected for debate together. I cannot go further than that in this kind of ruling.

Mr. Younger: Mr. Irving, I apologise for delaying the Committee, but there is a further point which I do not think is covered by your statement. As I understand, the Preamble can in any event be amended only if an Amendment accepted to some other part of the Bill makes it necessary for that Amendment to the Preamble to be made. This will be all right if certain Amendments which are suggested to the Bill are made, but if the Committee decides not to accept certain Amendments, and if it is still the view of some hon. Members that the Preamble should be amended, will there be some procedure whereby it will be possible for the Preamble to be amended?
Could you also tell me whether, even if that is now allowed to be done by a Member of the Committee, it will be in order for the Government, if they wish, to introduce an Amendment to the Preamble which may not be connected with any Amendment which has been made to the rest of the Bill? This is the real problem which faces us. As certain parts of the intention of the Bill are being carried out only in the Preamble, and apparently cannot be carried out in the body of the Bill, I should be grateful if you would look into this. I know, Mr. Irving, that you may not be able to answer my question now, but I think the Committee will need to know exactly where it stands.

The Chairman: I want to help the hon. Member, but I am aware of the danger of giving hypothetical Rulings. What the hon. Gentleman says about an Amendment to the Preamble once an Amendment to a Clause has been disposed

of is correct. If an Amendment to a Clause is rejected, the same matter cannot be brought in by way of an Amendment to the Preamble. Further than that I really could not, and would not, wish to go tonight. The whole question of the Preamble has to be considered, and that is debatable.

Mr. Mendelson: Further to that point of order. Mr. Irving, what you have just touched on is a matter of capital importance, because when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services was speaking, at a time when you were unavoidably absent, having consultations, he said that with a Bill one has to start somewhere. That sounded like an innocent remark at the time, but it is not quite so innocent in the light of the discussion that is taking place now.
Although much of the meat of the Bill is in the Preamble, the Government have started with the Clause dealing with composition, and not with the Preamble. This means that if we are prevented from moving Amendments to the Preamble we shall not be able to amend one of the most crucial parts of the Bill. I therefore urge you to reconsider the matter to try to find a solution which makes it possible for hon. Members to make such Amendments to the Preamble as they think necessary.

Mr. Onslow: I understand that at some stage the Chair puts the Question, That this be the Preamble to the Bill. I am not clear, and I do not know whether the Committee is clear, whether any Amendments can be moved to that Question. I shall not press you to go into this tonight because it may be, this being the odd Bill that it is, there is no precise precedent on which one can rely. But I hope that, after reflection and having taken advice, you will be able to come before us again soon and elaborate on this point, since it is of considerable importance.

The Chairman: This is why I had hoped that the Committee would allow me further time and allow me to make a statement at the beginning of the next day's business. As I understand, at the moment—unless I am further advised—although it is not possible to amend the Preamble in respect of a matter which has been rejected on a Clause, it is possible in this case to amend the


Preamble in respect of other matters. It is not possible to amend the Question which is put to the Committee, That this be the Preamble to the Bill, but that is debatable.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press me further than this. It is possible to amend the Preamble and I should like to reserve my position a little and have the sympathy of the Committee in allowing me to make any further elaboration of this on our next sitting day for the Committee. I believe that it is possible to amend the Preamble and discuss the Question, That this be the Preamble to the Bill, but not to amend it in respect of any matter which has already been rejected in the Bill.

Mr. Younger: Further to that point of order. Perhaps I could be specific to help you, Mr. Irving, in your considerations before the next day. Suppose that no Amendment is accepted in this Committee stage referring to regional representation in the new reformed House. This is merely an example. Are we then bound, as the only action that we can take when considering the Preamble, to reject it lock, stock and barrel or may we then say that, because no Amendments about regional representation, about which hon. Members may feel strongly, or anything else, have been accepted or put through in Committee, we have then only one option—to throw out the Preamble altogether or to accept it as it stands? It seems to me that that would be a most unsatisfactory situation and I should be grateful if you could look into that specifically.

The Chairman: I will certainly look into that. This is why I confined my original statement to suggesting that there were ways and means of having sections of the Preamble considered with the Clauses in the Bill. I feel that this would meet the hon. Gentleman's need more effectively than anything else that I can suggest. However, I will certainly look into the matter that he raises.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: I beg to move Amendment No. 72, in page 2, line 14, after '(2)', insert 'and subsection (5)'.
I understand that we are discussing, at the same time, Amendments No. 68, in page 2, line 38, at end add:

(5) Holders of hereditary peerages of England, Scotland, Great Britain or the United Kingdom up to a number of 20 elected by a majority of the holders of such hereditary peerages shall not be excluded from receiving a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords in any Parliament summoned after the commencement of this Act, and such elected holders of hereditary peerages shall be known as representative peers;
No. 73, in page 2, line 38, at end add:
(5) In any Parliament summoned after the commencement of this Act all peers by succession shall elect from their number 75 peers who shall possess full voting rights for the duration of that Parliament and who shall henceforth be described as peers by succession with voting rights;
No. 74, in Clause 2, page 2, line 43, after first 'of', insert:
'peers by succession with voting rights and';
and new Clause 12—Election of representative Peers,
At the commencement of each Parliament the holders by succession of a hereditary peerage of England, Scotland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom shall meet together according to a procedure to be laid down by a resolution of the House of Lords and shall elect not more than 20 of their number to serve as voting peers in the House of Lords for that Parliament.
It will be clear, I think, that Amendment No. 72 is consequential upon No. 73. Although there is no difference between the principle behind my group of Amendments and that behind new Clause 12 and Amendment No. 68 in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and others, an important difference of method is involved. We seek to enshrine the hereditary principle by enabling all peers who receive a writ of summons to elect from their number 75 to serve in all Parliaments as from the acceptance of this Bill, and the new Clause is concerned only with 20 elected in more or less the same way.
If the Amendment is carried, I will be happy to leave the method of selection to the peers. It is perhaps a minor point, but I would take issue with my hon. Friends on their version. I believe that 20 is too few to protect an efficient and able peerage from now on, very much for the reasons so clearly put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Only 20 in the new House would mean that the peerage as a whole will no longer function as such and would gradually become effete. So I prefer the


figure of 75, which I grant is an arbitrary one. It is difficult to work out, from the White Paper and the Bill, exactly how many peers there will be in the new House, and perhaps the Minister will comment on this. My figure of 75 is designed to be between one-quarter and one-third of the total, as I understand it. That would be an important proportion in any decision which the Lords would have to take in future.
8.45 p.m.
I should apologise at the outset for the fact that I am in some danger of covering ground which was covered in the debate on the previous Amendments. It was due to the courtesy of the Chair that that debate ranged wide. It dealt mainly with the heredity principle. In this debate my hon. Friends are concerned precisely with the hereditary principle, and it is therefore inevitable that we will cover some of the ground, perhaps in some detail, previously covered.
Perhaps I need not apologise too much because this matter is at the heart of the Bill. To remove the hereditary principle would be to remove the House of Lords in any historical and meaningful sense. One could refer to it as the "House of Nominees", as some hon. Gentlemen opposite have suggested, or the "House of Members of the M.C.C." or "House of Members of the Football Association". It would be just as relevant to call it that as to go on calling it the House of Peers. Should the Amendment not be accepted we will no longer be debating the House of Lords but a second Chamber of a different description.
I plead with hon. Members in considering the Amendment to take the matter seriously. There have been times earlier this afternoon when, understandably, a note of levity has crept in. Some hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), have made it plain that they wish to treat the matter lightly. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale made it clear that he thinks that the way to achieve his objective is to treat the committee stage as a joke. I suppose that that is one way of approaching it.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): The hon. Gentleman is moving the Amendment in moderate

terms. I assure him that I will not treat the matter with levity. When I reply I will try to adopt the spirit which he is adopting in explaining the Amendment. I hope, therefore, that he will not stress this aspect of the matter too much.

Mr. Hastings: I have no intention of stressing it any more, and I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's assurance. I merely wish to register the fact that there is a tendency—perhaps it goes wider than the House of Commons—to regard a defence of the hereditary peerage in these terms as simply a waving of some banner from the mediaeval past. It is not. I assure the Committee that I am concerned with what I believe to be the two primary values of good government. They are individual liberty and the limitation of man's power over man. It is in regard to those two values that I seek to make my case.
I remind the committee that the hereditary principle in Parliament is not as old as the peerage. The writ of summons to the Model Parliament of 1295 did not carry with it the right to be summoned to Parliament to the successors of those who were on that occasion. Some sort of hereditary peerage existed in the reign of Edward I, but there was no automatic right of Parliamentary summons then either. The principle emerged in the reign of Henry VII. Thus this system is not the result of some aboriginal custom. It grew, was found acceptable and advantageous, and was formalised as part of the Constitution as the Constitution itself evolved. There have been several assaults on it as early as the eighteenth century and several times since then.
I suggest, in all seriousness, that the present objections to the hereditary principle functioning as it would under this group of Amendments are based mainly on two grounds or two assumptions, both of which I hold to be false. Of the first we have heard several times this afternoon. The argument runs that we have "progressed" in this country or society to a point where inheritance and legislative responsibility have become an anachronism. We hear the phrase "in this day and age" that "in this modern age it is ridiculous to argue that such a thing should continue". The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) used the phrase more than once.


We see it in the newspapers and hear it on television almost every day.
I want to examine precisely the nature of this so-called "progress". I grant that over the last 150 years, to take a somewhat arbitrary span of time, there has been vast technical progress. We live longer than people used to and we are surrounded with all sorts of mechanical marvels. Some, not us, alas, are preparing to land on the moon. These things would have been wildly beyond the expectations of those who lived a century ago. Material goods and economic wealth are more widely distributed, and in that way there has been progress. Education, some better than others, is universal, and to that extent there has been progress.
But none of these considerations relate directly or necessarily to the aims of good government or to a sound constitution. One could represent the same consideration with regard to the people of the Soviet Union, but I do not think anyone in this Committee would suggest that they have achieved good government. Considering the converse side of the argument about progress, there are those, not only in this House but widely in the country, who I think would agree that this is an age of diminishing virtue and failing courage—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—in which we tolerate any manifestation of atavistic excess anywhere in the world provided it does not upset our convenience or our illusions. It is an age in which we view with apparent indifference and lethargy the growth of a tyranny bent on destruction of all the values we should hold dear.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member is making a debating point, but I should have thought that in the thirties opposition to the aims of one of the most evil régimes in the world, that of Nazi Germany, would disprove what he is saying.

Mr. Hastings: Of course I concede. That was an encouraging example on the other side, but I am seeking to show that we can take two views about this famous "progress" at present. I think there would be those who would advance the idea that in this country now disorder is tolerated virtually to the point of reverence. I do not lay that at the door of the Government, but I think it is broadly true. This is an age in which

practically every moral and ethical conviction and standard has slipped. Many would say that our society at present is sick, and many would hold that this conviction about progress is misplaced.
The second ground or assumption on which it is argued that the hereditary peerage should be done away with is that heredity is bad because it is undemocratic. What I am about to say may be unpopular and unfashionable, but I think that it can be justified in the context of the argument. We idolise democracy. This fashion for regarding democracy as the only form of good government stems, of course, from the Jacobin movement originally and to a great extent was supported by the forces of the Marxist historical analysis, the impact of which has gone far to conceal its own sinister implications and the glaring nonsense of its own conclusion. But, political analysis did not start with Hegel's dialectic or with Marx. Aristotle made a far more enduring and lasting contribution to political analysis ages before.
Democracy is just another form of government. It can be good or bad. There is hardly a country which does not claim to be democratic in one form or another. Democracy in the Soviet Union is impeccable; 99 per cent. of all the people there always vote Aye and they claim to be democratic. I contend that democracy is good only in proportion to the extent that it rests upon liberty. Liberty, in turn, is based upon the concept of property and upon the rule of law.
I would assert, to finish this section of my remarks, that it is possible for these foundations to be eroded and for liberty to be confined under a democracy, as under any other form of government, if there is no check upon that excess.

Mr. Henig: On a point of order. If the remarks which have already been made were in order, as presumably they were, when other hon. Members speak in this debate will we be allowed to discuss Plato in more detail, Hegel in more detail, Marx in more detail, and many other philosophical concepts in more detail, because I think that to do so would make for a most interesting debate?

The Chairman: I think the answer is that the hon. Gentleman saw that I was edging forward on my chair and about to intervene, but I


postponed that moment because the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) said that he was coming to the end of that part of his speech. I am having great difficulty in relating the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the Amendment. I hope that he will come to the Amendment.

Mr. Hastings: I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) would welcome such a widening of the debate, because I understand that that was his business for years, anyway, before he came to the House of Commons.
I finish here. Under this new Constitution, without the hereditary principle, if this hereditary group of peers is not preserved in the House of Lords, there will be no independent check of the kind that exists now over the democratic system, which in fact could develop—there are historical parallels—by degrees into tyranny. By this Amendment we seek to preserve this important check of the existence of 75 independent peers.
Throughout the eighteenth and much of the nineteenth century—this is an important constitutional Measure, and I am convinced, Mr. Irving, that a short investigation into our history is not irrelevant—the two great merits of our Constitution, as I understand it, were held to be "the separation of powers" and what was known as "mixed government". This was recognised by such notable authorities as Montesquieu, Blackstone, de Lolme, Paley and Burke, all of whom spoke and wrote with great relevance upon what we are engaged in discussing tonight.
"Mixed government" consisted in an equipoise, which they believed to be brilliantly conceived, between monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. Each Estate, in their view, had its merits and its demerits. Each worked as a check upon the other. Together they ensured stability and a peaceful evolution for the British people. We do not have to delve very deep into history to trace how the weight of power here has shifted. It has been foreseen—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is really making a Second Reading speech. He must be more precise

in addressing himself to the Amendment than he is at the moment.

Mr. Hastings: Mr. Irving, I am seeking to show the danger if the hereditary principle is dropped and there is no hereditary element left in the House of Lords. With deep respect, I think that to trace how this power has steadily left first the Royal Prerogative and then the House of Lords itself and passed to the House of Commons alone is, in an important respect, relevant to my general argument.

The Chairman: Order. The Amendments are addressed to doing certain precise things. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to how he would bring these things about.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Hastings: I conclude, on this aspect of the matter, by pointing out that the power of the majority, that is, the power of the Commons, will be unchallenged if we do away with the hereditary principle altogether. We seek by our Amendments to preserve some check upon it through the independent peers.
At any given time, only a proportion of hereditary peers—this would apply in the future, too—are effective as legislators. But it is fair to suggest that we are not all necessarily so effective in this place, despite our hallowed democratic origins. A group of 75 elected within the existing peerage would contain a high proportion of effective legislators. They would, furthermore, be motivated—this is a legel mate point—by the need to legislate for posterity at least they would not be impelled so much as this House to legislate for immediate popularity. There is an important difference there. They would be answerable, as they are today, to no one but their own conscience, and not one of us can in honesty claim that that is so in our case, for we are answerable to our constituents, to the Whips and to a number of other influences which would not apply to them.
I admit that heredity is unfair. All accidents of birth are unfair. Life itself is unfair. It is unfair for a politician to get himself elected and become Prime Minister on a set of promises and pledges which, afterwards, perhaps, he has no intention of carrying out—even sometimes doing the precise opposite of what he said he would do. That is unfair.
There is another important aspect of the matter, I would remind the Committee of a dictum of Montesquieu:
Nobility is essential to a limited monarchy. Neither could survive without the other. Abolish the nobility and either a despotism or a republic would result.
Under the Clause unamended, a long step would have been taken towards just that situation, whether we recognise it at present or not. And I am well aware that there are hon. Members opposite who would wish precisely that.
The case for heredity has not been put better in a sentence or two in recent, months, since the present controversy started, than in a letter in The Times from Garter King of Arms. I shall quote one passage:
Is there nothing to be said for containing the great force of 'family first' in political forms stronger, because closer to its own biological nature, than those dictated by the optimism of the 18th-century enlightenment or later rationalism?
Yes there is plenty to be said. The prejudice against heredity and against this Amendment is a compound of fashion and of fear. A fashion of politics which has grown since the end of the 18th century, which has distorted history and has created an arrogant illusion of progress which does not in reality exist. A fashion for popular Government for the sake of its appearance, and, at times, at the expense of the true objectives of good Government as I have tried to describe them.
That fashion is the work of a political movement which, in its extreme form, has for too long been the curse of Europe and of the civilised world and which, again in extreme form, has brought untold misery to countless people, and with which many hon. Members opposite, consciously or unconsciously, are in some measure, infected. It is the result of fashion I said and of fear, the fear of appearing to be unfashionable. I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends in particular that we have nothing to be afraid of. Fashion is by definition changeable, and to fear it is too often to compromise with our convictions. There is some danger for us in that at present.
Finally, we are told that a merit of the Bill is that it has been agreed between the two principal parties, and that concessions

are naturally necessary to any agreement of this kind. Presumably the abolition of a functioning hereditary peerage is one of those concessions. Which of us has ever concluded a satisfactory agreement, commercial, legal or whatever, on the basis that we started determined above all to reach agreement? If that is our frame of mind, we are lost; yet that seems to me to be the frame of mind in which this Clause was conceived.
Let us not fear what we know to be wrong. Let us change it. I do not say that my suggestion of a group of 75 is precisely the best way, but it would go far to improve what at present is an appalling hash of a Bill.

Mr. Heffer: We should be most grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) for giving us a first-class exposition of extreme Right-wing thinking about the whole question of the reform of the House of Lords. In a sense, this is the traditional Tory attitude to the other place.
We should be grateful to the hon. Member for bringing it out as he has, because it is obvious that he is still living very much in the 15th century, about which we talked earlier. He has not advanced, except in certain directions which are somewhat sinister in a sense. By that I mean that we have heard before the talk about decadence, the sickness of society and the lack of virtue in society. It all has a very familiar ring. I can remember, as a young boy coming into the democratic Labour movement, hearing such things emanating from people in central Europe, who said that they would put Europe and the world in order, but established one of the most horrible dictatorial regimes ever known.
I ask the hon. Gentleman precisely what he meant when he said that Nazi Germany was an encouraging example on the other side. I may have misunderstood him.

Mr. Hastings: I was replying to the Minister, who quoted this as an example of what society has achieved in comparatively recent years. I was conceding it without reservation.

Mr. Heffer: I accept that, but at the time it sounded rather bad to me. I accept entirely that the hon. Gentleman


by no means meant what I thought was implied in that statement.
I find the Amendments fascinating. One suggests that the hereditary peers should elect 20 of their number who will then be permanently in the reformed House of Lords. The other suggests that we should have 75. For the purposes of what I think we should do if we are to extend this principle, 75 would be very satisfactory.
We should perhaps think of taking the principle a little further. Let us see what we can do with it. Let us decide, for example, that, in the new, reformed House of Lords, we should allow the dockers to elect 75 of their members to it and that the agricultural workers, the carpenters, the joiners and the bricklayers should elect 75 each from their own ranks. I will even concede that the lawyers should elect 75 of their members, and also the university teachers and the students.

Mr. Albert Booth: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the lawyers might have to deduct some members so as to bring their representation down to 75?

Mr. Heffer: That is an interesting thought.
Earlier, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) said that the important thing is to have continuity—for example, that the son of a coal miner makes a good coal miner because his dad was a good coal miner and so the son of a peer makes a jolly fine peer and is very good in the House of Lords because his dad was a peer.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said that the hereditary peers should have 20 or 75 Members to look after their interests. I am suggesting that all these other sections of the community should have 75 representatives each to look after their interests. Let us get them all in. On that basis, the new, reformed House of Lords would perhaps have about 75,000 Members. Then we could erect a great marquee on Clapham Common for the representatives of all these various sections of the country.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I hope that, later, I shall have the hon. Gentleman's support for Amendment No. 128, which proposes that one-third of the House of

Lords should be elected from societies, associations, trade unions and other bodies so that there will be a genuine election of the great interests of the country.

Mr. Heffer: I will be happy to discuss that later. It has great possibilities as well. Indeed, I see immense possibilities in the Bill. It may be that, if we discuss the Bill for the next two and a half months, we shall never arrive at a conclusion as to what we should do.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire made a serious speech. I have been humorous up to a point, but there is a serious side to this and we should treat it seriously—although I must admit that I find it a little difficult to do so. However, I will do my best. The hon. Member says that he would be happy to leave it to the House of Lords to decide who they would elect. He wants to give the peers a privileged position again. Going through the history of our country, he rightly said that the Royal Prerogative has been whittled away and, with it, the power of the peers. If we understand the history of our country, we know full well that, to expand and extend the democratic principle of involving wider and wider sections of our people in government, there has always had to be a struggle against the privileged minorities. The fight for democracy has been the struggle against the privileged minorities.
9.15 p.m.
In a sense, the English Civil War occurred because of the rise of the middle classes in the cities, who complained of being excluded from having a say in the running of the country, although the country's wealth was being built on their efforts and no longer on the efforts of the landed aristocracy. But the landed aristocracy were intelligent people. Although they nearly upset the applecart by fighting strenuously against the cities and towns during the Civil War, they later recognised their mistake and compromised and made certain that they intermarried with the industrialists of the towns. But, in a sense, that, too, was a struggle for the extension of democracy.
It was still rather like the Greek democracy of the days of Aristotle; it was a democracy of the slave owners, and for the slaves there was no democracy. Although the Civil War extended


democracy, the mass of the people who worked in the factories, the fields and the mines were still excluded. To use the modern American expression, they said, "We want a bit of the action". As a result there was a fight which ended in the great Reform Bill of 1832, and that was another extension and expansion of democracy and an attack on the powers and privileges of the other place. We have now reached a stage in our society when we have to say that the powers and privileges—

The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has reached the stage when he can come to the Amendment.

Mr. Heffer: I am coming to the Amendment now. I am suggesting that the Amendment would mean that, instead of taking that further step towards democracy, the complete elimination of the last vestiges of the privileges of the peers—and, unfortunately, the Bill does not take that final step—instead of removing the last vestiges of the powers and privileges of a class which feels that it is born to rule, the Amendment will continue the privileges of the class which is clinging to some vestige of power.

The Chairman: With the exception of the first Amendment, which is a paving Amendment, each of the Amendments in the group relates to the right of hereditary peers to elect a certain number to be peers as provided by the Bill. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to that issue.

Mr. Heffer: With due respect, Mr. Irving, although you may think that I have not been addressing myself to this question, I can assure you that I think most hon. Members know precisely that I have been doing so for the whole of my argument. This is what it is all about.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been addressing himself to the Amendment, but not in a sufficiently precise way for Committee stage. He is really making a Second Reading speech.

Mr. Heffer: I am not making a Second Reading speech. I am talking about the Amendment. It says that the hereditary peers will elect from among their number either 20 or 75 hereditary peers, who will then sit in a reformed House of Lords, and will be permanently in on the basis

of the new Measure which will give them this right. If this is accepted it means that this class which the 20 or 75 will represent, will be clinging on to their last vestiges of political power, to which they have no right to cling.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said that the hereditary principle goes to the heart of the Bill, and I agree. This is why it is such a mess; it is neither one thing nor the other. It is neither the abolition of the House of Lords and the hereditary principle, nor the acceptance of the hon. Gentleman's point of view. It is something in between, which satisfies no one, and that is why, in a sense we are allies in this battle against the Bill. It does not satisfy either the landed aristocracy or the proletariat. Neither principle is acceptable.
I would like to quote from Robert Barnabas Brough, who wrote a poem called "My Lord Tomnoddy". It says:
My Lord Tomnoddy is thirty-four;
The Earl can last but a few years more.
My Lord in the Peers will take his place;
His Majesty's councils his words will grace.
Office he'll hold and patronage sway;
Fortunes and lives he will vote away;
And what are his qualifications?—
ONE!
He's the Earl of Fitzdotterel's eldest son.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: Perhaps I can begin by assuring you, Mr. Irving, that I have no intention of following the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) in a somewhat inaccurate discourse of historical events. I must make one comment however. When he referred to the hereditary peerage as a privileged minority, I am bound to say that I can think of many sections of the community who are much more privileged than the hereditary peerage, but who use their privilege far less responsibly.
We have debated the principle and basis of the hereditary peerage for a long time. It would be absurd to suppose that the two groups on either side of the Committee can agree about it. Of course we cannot. What we probably can agree upon is to respect each other's point of view, it being a point of view held sincerely.
The group of Amendments before the Committee now, and the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), do not suggest that the House of Lords


should be composed solely of hereditary peers. It is not now. They do not suggest that the reformed House of Lords should be composed mainly of hereditary peers. It is not now.
I am entirely in favour of reforming the House of Lords, partly because I can see no point in the present Chamber having powers which it cannot use.
But I see no point in replacing the present Chamber with a newly-constituted Chamber and giving it powers which, if it uses them, will be taken away, which was the most unwise threat made by the Home Secretary on Second Reading. That would be an absolute farce. I have a feeling that the Home Secretary will live to regret that remark. What my hon. Friends and I suggest is that the hereditary element in the House of Lords should not be eliminated, but should be elected by their fellow hereditary peers.
I am not wedded to the figure of 75, or 20, as is proposed in another Amendment. We could argue for a long time about numbers. There is no law of the Medes and Persians about 75. I am concerned that the hereditary element should not disappear completely. Election by their fellow peers worked very well with the Scottish peers. No one has said that it did not. I have always thought it a great pity that in the last legislation put on the Statute Book changing the composition of the House of Lords election by their fellow peers should have been taken away.
Hon. Members opposite may say that the hereditary peerage is an anachronism. Perhaps it is. I am not so sure. I have a feeling—and probably I am as accurate in my history as the hon. Member for Walton—that the hereditary element in government, in this country at any rate, has lasted a great deal longer than the elected element and goes far deeper into history. I also have the feeling—and this was put very well in the article in The Times, to which reference has been made—that the principle of one man, one vote is not necessarily the universal cure or protection against all forms of oppression.
The Leader of the House knows that I am making a serious point—whether he agrees with it is neither here nor there—when I say that in its anachronis-

tic way the hereditary system in the House of Lords has produced, in generation after generation, men of great integrity, of great ability and, above all, of independence. I would put the last of those qualities almost at the top, because in any reformed second Chamber, with whatever powers it is given, it is extremely important that, however constituted, it should have ballast. One cannot run any legislative chamber without ballast. The ballast is far more reliable and far less likely to be influenced by undesirable elements if it is weighted on the side of the hereditary element rather than on the side of the nominated element.
I would far rather have the ballast, or safeguard, whatever one likes to call it, with a small element of hereditary peers elected by their fellow hereditary peers than rely on the cross-benchers in the House of Lords who, by their very nature, can rarely agree among themselves about anything.
There is a second reason why I am in favour of a small elected hereditary element. As I say, it is important to have ballast in the second Chamber. It is equally important to have a proportion of youngish men. By "youngish men" I mean men between the ages of, say, 35 and 45, which is a very elastic age group. If it does not contain youngish men, the second Chamber will consist of a lot of older people of 60 years of age plus, nominated from elsewhere, who are coming to the evening of their lives. The second Chamber cannot function unless there is an element of youngish men in it.
I do not know a better way of finding younger men, between 35 and 45, than through the hereditary system. The Prime Minister of the day will not be able to write to the Trades Union Congress and to big commercial firms asking whether three, four or five men of ability, halfway up the ladder, are prepared to drop their careers to come into the second Chamber and be voting peers, perhaps for a couple of Parliaments only, and unpaid. That is sheer nonsense, and I suspect that the Government Front Bench know it.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: What about the hon. Gentleman's own Front Bench?

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Lastly, an element of hereditary peers elected by their fellow peers, while not being perhaps the tidiest way, might be one way of solving the problem—at present unsolved—of the great officers of State, the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain. The Duke of Norfolk has a seat in the other place for as long as he lives. He can function as Earl Marshal on great State occasions and he can be a voting peer until the age of 72. When he dies, which, I hope, will not be for a very long time, his successor, who happens to be a cousin, would succeed to the dukedom of Norfolk and to the functions of Earl Marshal, but would not necessarily have a seat in the House of Lords. The office of Earl Marshal has been in existence for about 600 years. I am a traditionalist and consider that the Earl Marshal should have a seat in the other place so that he can function properly on great State occasions. One way of solving the problem would be for peers to be elected by their fellow peers.
Will the Minister say what is to happen about the great officers of State? Is their future secure, or are the Government hoping that something will turn up to put right this anomaly? For these reasons and others I strongly support my hon. Friends in this Amendment.

Mr. Henig: I will for a moment follow on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe). One of our objections on this side is that the other place has become a museum and many of us would feel in the matter of the Earl Marshal and other officers of State that the nation could at a pinch survive if we abolished the lot. If maces were needed for ceremonies perhaps one of my hon. Friends would be willing to participate. To suggest that this vital constitutional reform should be held up because of the Earl Marshal and other officers of State is the worst argument I have ever heard.
Whereas the my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was poetic, may I be prosaic and tell a story which I believe to be true, although it may not be. It concerns a lord of the manor who, when riding round his estate, came across a serf standing in the way. He asked the serf to move. The serf said, "Why should I?" The lord of the manor replied,

"Because this is my land". The serf then asked him, "Why is it?" The reply came, "My ancestors fought for it". The serf retorted, "Well, get off your horse, take off your jacket, and I will fight you for it now".
When the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) introduced his Amendment, it may be that we could be excused for thinking of him as an exponent of the divine right of kings. He spoke about the monarchy and its need to be supported by a strong and thriving aristocracy. However, amongst the surviving constitutional monarchies of Europe, in Sweden, for example, there is no aristocracy on the kind of pattern that the hon. Gentleman would preserve. Moreover, Sweden combines a monarchy with a reasonably socially democratic system. I should have thought that that disproved the arguments in support of the Amendment.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the separation of powers which is, he said, inherent in the British Constitution and, therefore, is another reason for making the Amendment. I submit, however, that the idea of the separation of powers being inherent in the constitution was irrelevant in the days of Montesquieu and is now a relic on the wall. Montesquieu was wrong when he analysed the British Constitution, though it was a good effort, and, in following him, the Americans have adopted the wrong model. But perhaps to some extent they are stuck with it.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: What safeguard, if any, has the hon. Gentleman in mind against a uni-cameral dictatorship? If a majority in the House of Commons was dominated by a despotism—

The Chairman: Order. I think that both hon. Members are getting wide of the Amendment. We are concerned with the composition of the other place in respect of the election by hereditary peers of certain members to sit in the reformed Chamber.

Mr. Henig: I take the point, Mr. Irving. I was dealing with the arguments put forward by the hon. Gentleman in support of his Amendment. If they were all out of order, as I suspect, presumably the Amendment itself is out of order.

The Chairman: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) was the first to urge me to rule the hon. Gentleman out of order. I hope that he will rely on his own judgment and not go wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Henig: I accept that, Mr. Irving, and I will do my best to observe your Ruling.
The fundamental objection to the Amendment is that it upsets the whole purpose of the Bill, which is to reform the House of Lords as it exists today, where the majority of members are there by the principle of hereditary and for no other reason.
It is deceptive to talk about 20, 30 or even 75 hereditary members being there to provide some sort of ballast. In the kind of streamlined second Chamber proposed by the Bill, an extra group of 75 hereditary peers clearly will make a considerable difference. In supporting the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton, I am bound to observe that those 75 will not be there for any intrinsic reason based upon their merit. Apparently it is being argued that the existing House of Lords based on hereditary members can be trusted to use the one man one vote principle in the same way as any other citizen. However, they should not be given anything like the weighting suggested that for every ten hereditary peers there should be one representative. After all, we as Members are used to representing 50,000 or 57,000 electors.
Then I want to deal with the point which has been made about young men. This is the argument which was used when the House of Commons was being reformed. It was said that young men could come into the House only as representatives of rotten boroughs and, therefore, if the House of Commons was reformed and the rotten boroughs were got rid of, we should never have any young men. I think that we on this side of the House have disproved that theory in recent years, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite want to reform their party they can do the same. The same applies to the House of Lords.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: There is one essential difference between this House and the other place. It is that hon. Members of this House enjoy salaries.

Mr. Henig: They also have to fight elections. My point is that young men have been able to work themselves into this House without the advantage of birth to help them. Similarly, young men can be, and are, eligible for appointment to the other House. In industry and in other walks of life young men in their 20s and 30s are making tremendous contributions. I think that it would be possible for the Government to find young men to serve in the other House, whether they were paid or not. If these young men were not making a contribution in other walks of life they would not be good enough to be in the other Chamber.

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend should be clear on the matter of pay. Great objections were raised within the Labour Party to payment and the Government were forced to drop it, at least temporarily; but this was the original intention of the agreement between the Opposition and the Government.

Mr. Henig: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that important point on record.

Mr. Younger: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give us the benefit of his advice. How will a young man living in Scotland, with no means of his own be able to serve in a reformed House of Lords without pay?

Mr. William Hamilton: By fighting to get into this one.

Mr. Henig: What chance do I stand with my hon. Friend in such sparkling form ! The way for someone wishing to make a political contribution to this country is to fight, like everyone else, to get into the House of Commons. The idea of a reformed House of Lords is to have a Chamber consisting of people who have contributed, or are contributing, to the country in other ways and, in the capacity of a second Chamber, contributing to legislation being passed. I am saying that if there are young men who fulfil these qualifications, then it is right that they should be appointed as Members of a reformed House of Lords.

Mr. Younger: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is meeting the point. If he will meet it properly perhaps the


Committee will understand. Is it his contention that some one living in a remote part of the country without private means could afford to come and work in the House of Lords without pay? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how it is done?

Mr. Henig: I am putting forward the contention that the rightful objective of a person in that position would be to serve in this House. I hardly think that a young man in his 20s or 30s would make it his lifetime's ambition to work in the House of Lords when there were such happier pastures in this place. My point is that that person would be doing something else. The Government would be right to pay certain expenses if he came down and participated in it, and it may—

The Chairman: Order. Incidental references to pay may be in order, but to go any wider would be out of order.

Mr. Henig: You are right, Mr. Irving, to bring me to order at this point, because it may be that we are straying rather wide of the considerations. My point was that it was wrong to say that there would not be young men in a reformed House of Lords, just as it was wrong 130 years ago to say that a reformed House of Commons would mean there would be no young men in it.
The idea behind the Amendment is to resurrect as a special class that group of people whom we are trying to stop being a special class. The word "class" here has a double significance. Hereditary peers are not a comprehensive section or selection of the population. They are concentrated into certain income groups and into certain geographical and occupational groups as well. They are in no sense representative. That is why the Bill is put forward. We now have this back door suggestion of allowing several hundred totally unrepresentative people to benefit from a representative principle, which they are apparently against, by sending 75 of their number to prejudice the reformed second Chamber from its beginning. We on this side, cannot accept that.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) in moving the Amendment, referred to the relationship between democracy and liberty. I am

sure that everyone will agree that democracy can only be founded on liberty, but liberty is the enemy of entrenched privilege, and so long as entrenched privilege exists both liberty and democracy are impossible.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Though I do not go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) in my concern about the position of the Great Officers of State, I think that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) was very ungracious in his reference to the Earl Marshal. Those who have had experience of these matters admire enormously the skill and care with which the great ceremonies of State have been organised by the Earl Marshal.

Mr. Peart: Mr. Peart indicated assent.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am delighted to see that the Leader of the House agrees with me.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Henig: I should like to make it clear that I was not impugning anything personal against the present Earl Marshal. I was suggesting that we could dispense with some of the offices of State, and appoint ordinary individuals to carry out those duties.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has explained that. His reference to "anybody can hold a mace" seemed to be an extraordinary reflection, in the direct context of the present Earl Marshal, on the man who organised Sir Winston Churchill's funeral, one of the most splendid bits of ceremonial this country has ever seen. Those who have seen how much better ceremonial is done in this country than in any other have cause to be grateful to the present Duke of Norfolk for the devotion to duty that he shows. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clearing up what he meant, because I wanted to get it clear that no one here was casting a reflection on a public officer who has shown so much regard for his duties even though these duties are hereditary and perhaps particularly because they are duties which have come to him by right of heredity.
I am concerned with nothing on this Amendment except the practical question of how to get the best possible Upper Chamber. I do not think that we should


confuse this by reference to privilege. Indeed, privilege seems an odd word to describe the doing of a considerable amount of arduous public duty, particularly when it is to be done, if we believe the Prime Minister, for nothing. It seems an odd description of privilege.
Surely what we are concerned with is to get the best possible composition for a Chamber, accepting, as the great majority on both sides of the Committee accept, that we want to have a second Chamber. I am with the Government in rejecting the idea of any form of popular election for a second Chamber. I am certain that that way lies great danger to this House, that a second Chamber fortified by a popular mandate would seriously affect the position of this House.
For practical purposes, one is driven back to a membership based on either nomination or some modified degree of heredity. If one is being fair, one has to admit that both those sources of membership have their disadvantages. I do not think the Lord President of the Council would deny that a House based entirely on nomination, whether by the Prime Minister, or by my right hon. Friend, or even by the Leader of the Liberal Party, if he was sufficiently interested, which he does not appear to be, to exercise his right in that way—in fact he would not nominate anybody, because he would not be here to do it—there would be a loss of independence, however one tried to do it, or whatever device of crossbench peers one used.
Equally, I accept that in our present stage of thinking there are difficulties about heredity. Perhaps I might say in parenthesis that when most of our fellow countrymen think of entrusting their money to a horse or to a dog they are very much interested in the heredity of that animal. But is not there a case for, as the Amendment proposes, a mixture of the two? Would not we get a more balanced second Chamber if, accepting for the purpose of this Amendment the Government's proposal and the proposal made by some of my right hon. Friends for a House largely nominated, we also have a separate section dependent on election by the present peerage? There we introduce an element of greater independence, possibly offset in the views of some hon. Members by the hereditary basis but

existing as a counter-balance to the excessive dependence of the nominated element.
Is there not, if one is constructing a second Chamber which one hopes will work well without challenging the position of this House, something to be said for a mixture? It would have an advantage in a particular circumstance which I referred to on Second Reading. I mentioned the situation which could arise in the event of a Government with a majority in this House desiring to perpetuate its majority by extending the life of a Parliament. I said that no constitutional safeguard of powers is an adequate protection if the composition is such that the Government are in control of the second Chamber. It does not matter if legally the second Chamber can resist this House if the Government here have an effective majority there.
If we introduce, as the Amendments propose, an element nominated neither by the Prime Minister nor by my right hon. Friend nor even by the absentee Liberals—

Mr. Birch: Oh, no: I spoke for them

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon Friend would do the Liberal Party far too great a compliment by acting on their behalf. I saw him impersonating the right hon. Member the Leader of the Liberal Party. My only reflection was how much more handsome the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) had suddenly become.
To come back to the point that I was putting when my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) saw fit, in his characteristically kindly way to assist me, if there is another element not nominated by any party but based on this system of election by the present peerage, that is a substantial safeguard against any majority in this House seeking to perpetuate itself by extending the life of a Parliament. I put considerable importance on this, because most students of our constitution take the view that one of the major arguments for a second Chamber is to provide a safeguard against just that. This is an additional argument in its favour.
But to take the practical point with which I began, of trying to create a Chamber which will be a good Chamber,


it cannot be disputed that the present peerage could and almost certainly would, from their membership, elect a number of people whose personal distinction, ability and experience would be of very great value. Indeed, I only wonder whether, in suggesting 75, my hon. Friend is not unduly limiting a very good source of recruitment for the Upper House, but I leave that point. Seventy-five excellent people could be selected.
Are we going to be so rich in talent and ability at the other end of the corridor that we can forgo this source of supply? It has already been said that this system worked very well in respect of the Scottish representative peers, and there is the advantage in a comparatively small electorate of this sort that, on the whole, they know one another and they know the possibilities of the candidates perhaps better than any other electoral body knows the people that it is electing. For that reason, they can be relied upon not only to elect suitable people but—this is equally important—not to elect unsuitable ones.
I therefore ask the Government not to be so bound up with the idea that nomination is the only method as to reject out of hand these proposals. We are in Committee and one has, for that purpose, therefore, to accept the main picture of the Upper House as the Government see it. But would it not be a better House if it had this further element in it which would be of high personal quality and would possess a degree of personal independence of political parties, of Governments and Oppositions, which the rest of the Chamber would not?
The Government are introducing what the Prime Minister rightly told us was a major constitutional reform. They want, not only because they want to do their best but because their reputation is very much tied up with the success or failure of this exercise, a really impressive and effective second Chamber. I ask the Leader of the House to reflect on whether he is not likely to get, and get the credit for creating, a better second Chamber if he adds this additional element than if he closes his mind and, for purely doctrinal reasons, rejects it.

Mr. William Hamilton: The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr.

Boyd-Carpenter) will recall his Second Reading speech in which he spoke of the Prime Minister's motives in rejecting the proposal in the White Paper concerning pay. He said on that occasion that that was duplicity on the part of the Prime Minister to placate his Left wing and to get the Bill on to the Statute Book. He also said that the Prime Minister would immediately afterwards bring in an Order to give the peers the salary which he now says they will not get. That was also the gist of part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech tonight.
On Second Reading, I said that that was my fear. If, however, that happened, and they were given a salary, the position which the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) posed would not arise, because the young gentleman without independent means would have a salary; and, simply by virtue of having a hereditary title, he would go to the House of Lords. If there is such a young man without independent means, then, by definition, he would be quite worthless and would not deserve a seat in any legislature; that is, unless he fought a General Election and got here by the democratic process.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman must have made a slip of the tongue. Did he really mean to say that a young gentleman without private means must, by definition, be worthless?

Mr. Hamilton: A young man without private means is, by definition, not entitled, simply because he has a title, to go to the other place. That is the point I wished to make. If he has no private means and wishes to enter politics, this is the place for him to come.
Several hon. Gentlemen opposite have referred to the position of State officials, such as the Earl Marshal. I have no disrespect for that gentleman. While we could do without him, he does a reasonable job. That is not prejudice one way or the other as to whether he should have a seat in the House of Lords. After all, he need not have a seat there to do his job, and the same applies to his successors.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames spoke of the threat under the Bill of this House prolonging the life of a Parliament because the Government of the day were assured of a majority. He assumes that this danger will be more


prevalent with a Labour than a Conservative Government. If the Amendment were accepted—remembering that the hereditary peers are predominantly Conservative—and 20 or 75 of their number were elected in the way described, then presumably those 20 or 75 would be predominantly Conservative peers, and there would still be a built-in Conservative majority when a Conservative Government were in power.
There would then be nothing to stop that Conservative Government from extending the life of a Parliament, so that the danger of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke would be more real under a Conservative than under a Labour Government.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That sounds convincing. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consult those who have had the problem of managing the Conservative peers. He may recall the saying of a former Chief Whip of that House, "It is easy to get them there, but deuce difficult to get them into the right Lobby."

Mr. Hamilton: It was not difficult to get them there on the Rhodesia Order, the

Burmah Oil Measure, or the Rent Act, with which the right hon. Gentleman was, I think, concerned.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman was talking about extending the life of a Parliament.

Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply in his remarks that heredity produced quality. He mentioned dog or horse racing. I suggest that there is more selectivity on a stud farm than there is in the hereditary peerage.

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put:—

That the Proceedings on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Peart.]

The House Divided: Ayes 155, Noes 50.

Division No. 65.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)


Archer, Peter
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Janner, Sir Barnett


Bence, Cyril
Eadie, Alex
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Binns, John
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Bishop, E. S.
Ellis, John
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Blackburn, F.
English, Michael
Lawson, George


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ennals, David
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Booth, Albert
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Loughlin, Charles


Boyden, James
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Faulds, Andrew
McBride, Neil


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fernyhough, E.
McCann, John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Finch, Harold
MacColl, James


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McGuire, Michael


Buchan, Norman
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. SirEric (Islington, E.)
Mackie, John


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Ford, Ben
Maclennan, Robert


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Forrester, John
McNamara, J. Kevin


Carmichael, Neil
Fowler, Gerry
MacPherson, Malcolm


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mal1alieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Coe, Denis
Freeson, Reginald
Manuel, Archie


Coleman, Donald
Gardner, Tony
Marquand, David


Conlan, Bernard
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Crawshaw, Richard
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Millan, Bruce


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gregory, Arnold
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)



Griffiths, Eddle (Brightside)



Cutler, Mrs. Alice
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Dalyell, Tam
Hamling, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hannan, William
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Moyle, Roland


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Henig, Stanley
Murray, Albert


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hilton, W. S.
Oakes, Gordon


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ogden, Eric


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
O'Malley, Brian


Delargy, Hugh
Howie, W.
Oram, Albert E.


Dell, Edmund
Hoy, James
Oswald, Thomas


Dempsey, James
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Doig, Peter
Hunter, Adam
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dunnett, Jack
Hynd, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)




Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Whitlock, William


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Silverman, Julius
Wilkins, W. A.


Pentland, Norman
Slater, Joseph
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Small, William
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Probert, Arthur
Swingler, Stephen
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Randall, Harry
Taverne, Dick
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Rees, Merlyn
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Winnick, David


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Urwin, T. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Richard, Ivor
Varley, Eric G.
Woof, Robert


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)



Robertson, John (Paisley)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
White, Mrs. Eirene
Mr. Charles R. Morris.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gower, Raymond
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Biffen, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Biggs-Davison, John
Hastings, Stephen
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boyd-Carpenter Rt. Hn. John
Jopling, Michael
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Kimball, Marcus
Russell, Sir Ronald


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Channon, H. P. G.
MacArthur, Ian
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cooke, Robert
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)
Temple, John M.


Crouch, David
Marten, Neil
Waddington, David


Dalkeith, Earl of
Mawby, Ray
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Monro, Hector
Ward, Dame Irene


Eden, Sir John
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Younger, Hn. George


Farr, John
Neave, Airey



Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Sir Gerald Nabarre and


Goodhart, Philip
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Victor Goodhew.

PARLIAMENT (No. 2) BILL

Again considered in Committee.

[MR. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Hamilton: I was saying, before we were interrupted, that there is more scientific selectivity on the stud farm than there is in the hereditary peerage. Therein lies the basic objection which we on this side have to the bunch of Amendments now before us. If any one of them were accepted, it would enshrine the principle that a special status and special rights attach to hereditary peers. We should simply be underlining it.
It is significant that the only poll conducted among the peers themselves was carried out some time ago by Professor Peter Broomhead, of Bristol University, and that the idea of selection or election of peers by peers to serve in the other House was the only proposition which received general support among all sections of Members of the other place. That seems to me to be the soundest of reasons why we should reject it.

Miss Quennell: I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Fife, West

(Mr. William Hamilton), and I am glad that chance has enabled me to speak after the interruption at 10 o'clock rather than before. However, I shall follow not the hon. Gentleman's arguments. It seems to me that this group of Amendments holds within it a fundamental principle of great concern to the country.
The question before us here is whether there should be in the newly reformed upper House a group of men and women utterly independent of the party machine and party Whips, people capable of acting independently and without fear of the Front Benches and the usual channels, as they are commonly called in this place. Of latter years, the country has been concerned that Parliament is not sufficiently strong to control the Executive. The country wants both Houses to be able to exert greater pressure on any Government at any time.
I think that I speak for hon. Members on both sides when I say that we feel ourselves to be diminished by the pressure of Government business perpetually encroaching on the rights of Private Members. What the country wants is that both Houses should exert control over expenditure. But what have we got? We have the power of the modern Whipping machine. Let us make no bones about it.
Hon. Members opposite have referred to their election manifesto. It is true that in 1966 they spoke of the reform of the other place. But let us face facts. In the public mind reform means strengthening, not weakening. One reason why the other place is not popular with either Front Bench is that, by the very nature of its hereditary personnel, it possesses an independence which we here do not possess, independence of the party machine. There are hon. Members on both sides who have had the experience of being requested by their Executives to explain certain little matters which are troubling the Executives. There are also the Whips.
Therefore, the other place is looked at askance by the two Front Benches, and with some alarm by the party machines and Whips. I see my hon. Friends in deep collusion at the moment, and the Patronage Secretary is absent. I do not blame him. So we get the spectacle of this unnatural cohabitation between the two Front Benches, the constitutional conspiracy and collusion which has produced the Bill.
10.15 p.m.
Clause 1 provides for the creation of political "Hush Puppies" that will go trapsing up the corridor as a result. Let us consider who these dear people will be. We have it from the hon. Members for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) and Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) that the younger men will come here. We can understand what they expect will go to another place. Those "Hush Puppies" will be sensitive to the party machines and the Whips. They are the people who must never, never change their minds. They will be balanced by others who will never, never make theirs up. What a way to strengthen Parliament! What a thing to introduce when what the country wants is a stronger Parliament and not a weaker one!
What the second Chamber needs, as does this Chamber, are men of independence who can make up their minds fearlessly, and only by the introduction of some such device as my hon. Friends have suggested in the Amendments will that be secured.

Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) wants the in-

dependence of the House of Lords to continue. But she should remember that its independence has been shown on some very peculiar occasions and in some very odd ways. When it comes to matters of self-interest, their Lordships have not always shown that kind of independence that comes from a neutral attitude.
The debate has given me an interesting outline of current reactionary views, which have proceeded unknown to me until now. I have not heard current reactionary views for many years. During the discussion of the merits of the Earl Marshal and various people whose duties and performances I did not fully understand, I was brought up to date with what is a small number of people, both in the House and the country, are trying to defend. When I heard the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) talk about the poor Highland crofter going to the House of Lords and not being paid to go there, I found it very difficult to imagine his full plight.
The hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) asked for a certain amount of ballast to be found in the other place, which he considered to be one of its great merits. "Ballast" is a word that sounds very good. It gives the impression of stability, and so on, but when we analyse it we find that it means what it very often used to mean when spoken by Tory politicians. It means men basically of reactionary views, men who are solid in their opposition to change. If that is what ballast really means, there is not a deficiency of that kind. To me, at any rate, there is a surfeit of this sort of reaction.
Then we have heard, as we always do when discussing the abolition of certain aspects of privilege, the plea for the young, because no one will accept somebody who is basically immature unless he is the product of a privileged society. Amongst these immature young men who have the enormous advantage of birth handed to them, it is obvious that one will find here and there those with talent. We find that sort of situation in every nursery or kindergarten in the country. But these young men with a little more talent than their fellows possess are cited as examples of the need for youth, produced from an inner egalitarian society.
If there is so much to be said for youth, we can surely find better ways of producing these young men. I believe that we have not even begun to tap the levels of ability in young men who would be delighted to give something in the interests of public life. We need to look in that direction.

Sir Douglas Glover: Of course they want to make their abilities known to the public. They want to come to the House of Commons.

Mr. Sheldon: I could not agree more. If we are to have the House of Lords proposed in the Bill—and I am opposed to it—I concede the case for some younger people than perhaps the 60-year-olds who look like going there. We can surely find a better method of making use of the talent available in the country and which is only too ready to be harnessed to public life.

The Amendment deals with the election of hereditary peers by their own fellows. Clearly, the crucial part rests on the basis that these people have something to give to public life that cannot be given by others in selecting a group of people to represent particular interests. If these people had something extra to give than is available to the commonalty of the people, the argument might be acceptable, but one of the most striking features about those who have had privileged upbringing resulting from privileged birth is that the kind of understanding they have of the world is not particularly valid.

They have suffered little. They have struggled hardly at all. Although no one wants to increase struggle or suffering, nevertheless we understand that some of our basic attitudes are largely based on a certain amount of suffering that is inescapable in life and on a certain amount of struggle which is also part of the process of reaching understanding and reason. The ordinary day-to-day problems—the worries of earning a living, of feeding and clothing children—which are the bread and butter of politics because they concern people so deeply, are essentially the problems from which the peers are very largely exempt.

Of course, they have different kinds of suffering, based on the struggle of per-

sonalities, but they do not have the problems of earning their living and knowing full well that, if they fail, there is the dole queue, unemployment benefit or sickness benefit, and "little more on which to depend. That is the sort of situation which the vast majority of our people have to face and the peers are exempt from feelings of this kind. That is their shortage of experience. But such things are essential if they are sensibly to discuss the life of the people.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I agree 80 per cent. with the hon. Gentleman that suffering and struggle are a great purgative, and we have all in the House of Commons gone through this fiery furnace: but does not the hon. Gentleman concede that it is possible that it is a good idea to have, perhaps in minority proportions, certain people who are above this struggle and who therefore have an independence of mind and who can look at the thing more objectively than either the hon. Gentleman or I can?

The Deputy Chairman: Interventions should be brief.

Mr. Sheldon: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made out a case for those people to speak on matters about which they know very little. I suppose that a case of sorts could be made for people not knowing anything of a subject about which they are trying to influence opinion, but it is certainly not a case which we should discuss seriously. As they do not have the kind of understanding of the problems presented daily and weekly to all sections of the community, the need for their representative voices on these problems strikes me as being of rather less importance than has been made out.
One thing that strikes me most strongly about the influence wielded by the other place is that the best example is this very Bill. It came about as a result of the pressure on the peers. It was they who decided this Bill. Why does it have anomalies and why are we discussing peers of succession? Does anybody seriously think that my right hon. Friend had this at the back of his mind as the great social reform which he wanted? He bowed to pressure and we all know that he did, and the pressure came from the House of Lords itself. That is where agreement had to be made, and that is


where concessions had to be granted, and I believe that to be wholly wrong and wholly unacceptable. When we are discussing

important matters like the very constitution, the House of Lords itself and its attitude to its reform need to be questioned and questioned vigorously.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I do not think that we shall get a great body of men traumatically seared by suffering from the elderly superannuated M.P.s who are to be pushed into the House of Lords after the next election, a body of nominated men of about 60 to 75. I believe that the wishes of hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), will be met by the Amendments suggested by Opposition Members.
The hon. Member for Fife, West wants younger men in the other place and we are more likely to get them from the representative peers elected by their own peers than from any nomination. The hon. Member for Walton made a powerful plea for democracy, but we shall get more democracy and more injection of independence from the Amendments suggested by my hon. Friends than we ever shall from the Government's proposals.
I accept that there has to be a large number of nominated peers in the reformed House of Lords. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] A certain number anyway. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] One has to be realistic.
I put forward a suggestion for a balanced House of Lords, which is what we want—a package deal. I accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), which puts it at 75 peers to be elected by their co-peers. When it is taken with the suggestions which I will make, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) for elections by the associations and societies, men of science and industry, trade unions, agriculture and commerce, we shall get a large body of men who will be independent. It is imperative that we should adopt the principle of having a certain percentage of Members of the House of Lords independent, and not just nominated by the Prime Minister of the day. My hon. Friend the Member for Peters-field (Miss Quennell) called them "Hush Puppies". I would call them lap dogs.

Mr. John Hall: Would not these independent peers be nominated by the Prime Minister of the day?

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Not those who are elected. About 50 per cent. of the House would be independents of one sort or another. Why should the hereditary peers have the right to select some peers for the House of Lords? I put it on these grounds—that for 600 or 700 years the hereditary peers have been the backbone of the House of Lords. There have been life peers, bishops and lawyers, but by and large the great body of the peerage has been the hereditary peers. Of the present peerage, over 70 per cent. are hereditary.
I do not put it too high, but to get rid of the hereditary element altogether is striking a blow at the principle of our hereditary monarchy. That is a point which should not be overlooked. We should keep a definite but fairly small element to mark the principle that we have had for the last 600 or 700 years. Our Amendment is a more modest proposal, which, taken with the one-third elected by the outside organisations, would mean that nearly half of the House would be independent. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire puts it at 75, and I am ready to go along with that. The guts of these Amendments should appeal to the hon. Member for Walton. We are offering him independent voting peers, who will be free from the influence of that horrible Front Bench opposite.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: It will not have escaped your notice, Mr. Gourlay, that this group of Amendments is tabled by a number of my hon. Friends and myself, all of whom voted against the Bill on Second Reading. We hope that in Committee, by making positive suggestions, we can make this a useful Measure. I would have preferred that some of the rather broader and more constructive Amendments which we have tabled might have been taken before this one, which has a controversial element about it. Let me outline the basic thinking that has gone into it.
My hon. Friends and myself feel that we have a serious gap in our constitution and that the Bill gives us the opportunity to do something about it. It is a commonplace in the Press, at public meetings and in the country, that there are elements in our national life which


are unrepresented at Westminster. It is dangerous for democracy that people should think that, and it is extremely dangerous if it is true. I think that it is. I hope that the Committee stage of the Bill will be an opportunity to fill some of the breaches in our constitution which have developed by drawing up a clear and workable basis for the establishment of a new House of Lords.

Sir D. Glover: There are many people not represented here. Looking round the Chamber, when we are debating one of our biggest constitutional problems, a lot of people on both sides are not represented tonight.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Not only is there a gap in our constitution to be filled, but there are certain undesirable trends which ought to be corrected. One problem is the over-mighty Prime Minister. I am not trying to be personal, but it is a matter of common observation that the power of the Prime Minister in our constitution has become too great.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: We have a lot of hereditary peers at the moment. Can the hon. Gentleman say in what respect they have managed to curb the power of the Prime Minister?

Sir B. Rhys Williams: The argument that I am trying to develop, if the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) will allow me, is that we have an opportunity to do something about undesirable trends which the existing House of Lords is not able to do or has not done—

Mr. Lubbock: In what way?

Sir B. Rhys Williams: —and which the Bill, as envisaged by the Government, will not do either. This is the reason why we are putting forward a series of what we hope are constructive Amendments.
I have referred to the problem of the presidential Prime Minister. I think that there is also general agreement that we are facing increasingly the problem of the unmanageable civil service.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We are discussing Amendment No. 72, along with Amendments

Nos. 68, 73 and 74 and new Clause 12, concerning whether we should have 20 or 75 hereditary peers elected to the new Chamber.

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. Surely it is relevant, in deciding what sort of legislature we have, whether that legislature will be able to control the Civil Service.

The Deputy Chairman: I was merely drawing attention to the fact that the Amendments under discussion are concerned with the numbers which should be elected to the new Chamber.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: On a point of order. In fact, the question of the independence of the hereditary peerage is directly related to the power of the Prime Minister. Anyone who has any instruction in this matter must see that. Therefore, I urge that my hon. Friend should be allowed to proceed with this line of argument.

The Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) had already left that point. The point on which I stopped him was different.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: I will explain it more clearly. I believe that the Upper House, as envisaged in the Bill, will not serve to correct any of these faults. But the Upper House, as my hon. Friends and I envisage it, might be able to do something about it. One feature that I hope we might ultimately have in a reformed Upper House will be a body of people who are absolutely above party influence and absolutely above the influence of the Prime Minister of the day.
I feel that another of the undesirable trends in our constitution is the decline of the monarchy as a corrective. Perhaps 100 years ago in a situation such as we have at present, where a Government has repeatedly been shown in by-elections to be out of touch with popular sentiment, the monarchy would have had power to dismiss the Prime Minister of the day and to ask another man to come forward who could command the confidence of the Houses of Parliament. I am assured that that would not be possible today. This is why I say that


the monarchy has declined in status, and this is giving rise to undesirable strains in our constitution.
Finally, I should like to refer to what I might call the horrid triumph of the party system in the conquest of the individual thinker. Here I feel that we have an opportunity to do something. I hope that as a result of our discussions, which I expect will be lengthy, but I do not think they will be any the worse for that, we shall be able to evolve, first, a House representing all the best elements in our national life which are not able to be represented in the House of Commons.
Secondly, I hope that the reformed House will be based on what might be called "constituencies" of our national life, other than the purely regional constituencies which are the basis of the representation in this House, constituencies which would confer on the people chosen authority as real as that which is conferred on Members of the House of Commons.
What I have in mind is a House elected not on a purely territorial basis, but able to bring to bear on the Government forces which correspond to the views of broadly based movements among the people at large. I hope that the new Chamber will not be merely what, in electronics, is known as an echo chamber. I do not want it to be a nominated Chamber. I should like it to be a meeting place for men and women who have a contribution to make of popular origin, but unable to be represented in this House.
We have, through the courtesy of the Chair, dealt at length with the question of heredity on the previous Amendment. To those who, on this group of Amendments, spoke very strongly, and I think perhaps rather irrationally, against the hereditary principle, it is worth pointing out that on those Amendments the Committee showed by an overwhelming vote that it respected the value of the hereditary principle. Whether they like it or not, hon. Gentlemen opposite should accept that respect for the principle of heredity exists in Britain as an element in our society, and that it should also be an element in our constitution, albeit perhaps a small one.
I am not enamoured of the two-tier system, of making two different classes of peers, which the Government have put forward in their White Paper and in the Bill. I feel that this will create a degraded class of representative in the Upper House. Words like "soft-shoe shuffle" and "Hush Puppy" have been used. I envisage a sort of macabre dance of the eunuchs when serious issues are being debated, with what Disraeli called "transient and embarrassed phantoms" taking part, but not able to contribute anything of any substance to the debate in the other place.
What is here envisaged really a kind of tontine, which, I believe, is a word for a group of people which constantly diminishes until, ultimately, only one person is left, and I cannot help foreseeing that one day the last survivor of the 1969 vintage of peers may still be seen occasionally in this Palace, shuffling about, a sort of voteless wonder, as a reminder of something which has long since past. I would prefer to see some peers who are entire members of the House of Lords, senate, call it what one will, and have the same rights and privileges as all the other members.
I am not committed to the number. The Amendment to which I have put my name suggests 20. This figure occurred to me because it is about one-tenth only of the number of peers which is envisaged in the White Paper. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made an extremely good point when he said that there would be a shortage of talent available to be recruited to the other House. If, therefore, the Committee decides that it would like to have more than 20 such people, I should not be against that, but in the hope of getting agreement to the Amendment I would not wish to pitch the number too high.
Nor am I particularly convinced as to the method of election. Whether it is desirable that they should be chosen by the hereditary peers or by a Committee of the Privy Council or by a third method is a minor consideration. But I hope that there could be a certain number of peers who could maintain the continuity and sense of organic development in our constitution and that there will not be this macabre element surrounding the


hereditary peers, making them creatures of no substance, there by grace so long as they do not make a nuisance of themselves.
It is worth remarking also that many peers are likely to be present in a reformed House by virtue of their other merits and not simply because they have been chosen as representatives of the peers as a whole. I am not recommending the precise wording of the Amendment, but I hope that the Government will take note of the concept. Even if they will net accept any of these Amendments, I trust that they will bring in one of their own in the same sense.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. David Winnick: I have no wish to join in the general argument about age, because I do not consider it to be a great factor in the consideration of the second Chamber or even of our own House, but I should like to take up one or two arguments. First, I find it difficult to accept the proposition that the greatest protection against any future tyranny will come from some hereditary peers in the reformed Chamber—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) is getting rather excited. Perhaps he could try to contain himself—

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: I am rather hard of hearing. Would the hon. Gentleman put his false teeth right smack up in his kisser? Then I could hear what he is saying.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made one of his characteristic remarks, which needs no comments from me.
The point about protection from tyrrany is important. If we are to have some protection against a possibility, which, I hope, will not arise, it will come in protecting the democratic rights which the country has at the moment and not from hereditary peers in the House of Lords. As a democratic Socialist, I am all in favour of maintaining our democratic rights and extending them—which is not something about which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are very concerned, I believe.
We have also been told that the hereditary peers, selected or elected, will be independent. But time and time again, hereditary peers have defended the narrow class and property interests. It is surely foolish to say that such people will become, after all these hundreds of years, independent. When it comes to property interests, there is no real division on the Tory side in the House of Lords. It is impossible to accept that for independence, for the neutral voice, we shall have to rely on some hereditary peers—

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Member shows a complete lack of appreciation. In my constituency, about three years ago, we asked a noble lady to come and open our fete, and she won a moped in our big draw, much to our anger. And three months later, she and her husband joined the Labour Party.

Mr. Winnick: I am always pleased when people join the Labour Party, regardless of their motives.
One only has to remember the Rent Act of 1967 and the Leasehold Reform Act to recognise that it is impossible to accept that the hereditary peers will ever be independent when it comes to property interests. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite know full well that what I am saying is basically correct. They know what the result has been in the other place during the last 10 or 20 years when a Labour Government have put forward Measures that were regarded as anti-property.

Mr. John Biffen: Is it, therefore, the hon. Member's proposition that it was concern with property interests which led the House of Lords to indicate the view that it did on the Stansted airport proposal?

Mr. Winnick: That point does not basically contradict what I said earlier. I quoted two examples, the Rent Act, 1957, and the Leasehold Reform Act.
I turn to the quality of hereditary peers. When right hon. and hon. Members opposite have spoken on the Amendment, they have implied that, somehow, people who have inherited a title are better than the vast majority of ordinary citizens who have never inherited one. I do not accept that. Also implied in some of the remarks of hon. Members opposite in


support of the Amendment has been a dislike of democracy. One hon. Member said that the movement of progress of the last 200 years was to be deplored. I do not deplore it. The movement of progress in the last 200 years towards greater equality and greater democracy is something which I welcome. If anything, I hope that that movement will continue at a far greater pace.
I cannot accept that simply because a person has inherited a title, no matter how far back the title may go, he should have special rights and privileges in our democracy. I am a believer—obviously, some hon. Members opposite are not—not in one man one vote, but in one adult one vote. One of the reasons why I support the Bill is that it takes away some of the privileges which should not continue to exist in a modern and up-to-date democracy. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be defeated.
One extremely useful point, however, which has emerged from this debate is that there are still right hon. and hon. Members opposite who basically dislike democracy and the idea that each individual should exercise a right to vote.

Mr. Lubbock: Having sat here from 10 o'clock and listened to what has been said since—[HON. MEMBERS: "Half-past three."] I deliberately did not come in from 3.30 till 10 o'clock, because I cannot imagine how an assembly which is meant to represent the nation can spend so long dealing with such a trivial issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] If the speeches to which I have listened since 10 o'clock have been typical of the debate since 3.30, Mr. Gourlay, I cannot imagine how you have managed to stay awake. I have heard nothing but piss and wind all the time I have been in the Committee.

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. Will you tell the hon. Member since when that expression "piss" was a Parliamentary expression?

The Deputy Chairman: The Chair would deprecate the use of such language.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Lubbock: Since the expression has been challenged, Mr. Gourlay, I can do no better than quote one or two sentences which I jotted down during the time that the hon. Member for Kensing-

ton, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams), who has now left the Chamber, was speaking. The hon. Member said that he was not enamoured with the two-tier system and that he envisaged a macabre dance of the eunuchs. What sort of language is that?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Really!"] That is what I would call piss and wind.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. You have already said, Mr. Gourlay, that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw that expression. He has used it again.

Mr. John Hall: Further to that point of order. Is it appropriate that an hon. Member who hopes to become a Liberal peer should use such an expression?

The Deputy Chairman: I have already indicated to the Committee that the Chair deprecates the use of such language. Perhaps we can now get on.

Mr. Lubbock: You may have deprecated the use of the term, Mr. Gourlay. but you have not forbidden me to use it. I therefore feel entitled not to withdraw it.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Lubbock: No.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: It must be Liberal language.

Mr. Jopling: On a point of order. Would you care to give the Committee a somewhat more detailed Ruling on the use of an expression which I prefer not to repeat, Mr. Gourlay?

Mr. Heller: Let us get on.

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Jopling: The Liberal Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) used a disgraceful phrase. Would you ask him to withdraw it in the interests of decency?

Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order. Before you reply to that point of order, Mr. Gourlay, may I ask you if it is right for an hon. Member to challenge a Ruling which you have already given? While you deprecated the use of the term, you did not instruct me to withdraw it. Now


an hon. Member is trying to get you to reverse a decision which you have already made.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I have already said that the use of the words in question is deprecated by the Chair. I hope that they will not be used. I think that the Committee would now like to proceed with the debate on the Amendment.

Mr. Lubbock: I have noted your advice, Mr. Gourlay.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order.

Mr. Lubbock: Not again.

Sir D. Glover: This is a very important point. The Chair has ruled in the kindest language that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw the phrase which he uttered.

Mr. Lubbock: That is not so.

Sir D. Glover: You did not actually say that, Mr. Gourlay, but may I ask you to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it?

The Deputy Chairman: I have not asked the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the particular words concerned, but I said that the Chair strongly deprecated the use of such words. I hope that we may now proceed with the debate.

Mr. Lubbock: I hope that I will be allowed to proceed with my speech. I entirely accept your Ruling, Mr. Gourlay, and I will be very careful in deciding whether to use that expression on future occasions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shocking."] As long as the content of the debates in which I may take part in future do not justify the use of that expression, as this debate has done, I—

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order. Are we to take it that although the Chair has deprecated the use of the expression used by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), hon. Members are at liberty to use it if they feel so inclined? In other words, are we to understand that it is a Parliamentary expression which we will not be asked to withdraw if inadvertently, it slips into one's speech?

The Deputy Chairman: The point at which an hon. Member is asked to withdraw something is when accusations have been made against an hon. Member or hon. Members. I hope that we can now proceed with the debate. I do not wish to hear any further points of order on this issue.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] May I appeal to hon. Members to allow the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) to make his speech? We are all anxious to hear the views of the Liberal Party on this matter. After all, we have not heard it all day. The Liberals have not been here.

Mr. Lubbock: Had the hon. Gentleman been listening to me he would have heard me explain why I have not thought it necessary to take part in the discussion between half-past three this afternoon and ten o'clock tonight. The hon. Gentleman may also like to know that I have been engaged on a Select Committee this afternoon. That work has, I think, been of considerably greater importance than the matters that have been discussed in this Chamber.

Mr. Heffer: What about the other Liberals?

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Interventions should not be made from a seated position.

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Heffer rose—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member who is speaking does not give way, the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Mr. Heffer: Where have all the other Liberals been?

Mr. Lubbock: Does the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) really believe that the future of the House of Lords is more important than science and technology?

Mr. Heffer: Well—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) will now address himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Lubbock: Mr. Lubbock rose—

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Peart: I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind that this is an important debate, which raises great issues of principia. I do not want to delay or prevent any discussion, but I should like to reply to the various points that have been made. I am not seeking to place an obstacle in the way of any hon. Member who may wish to speak, should he catch the eye of the Chair, but, as Leader of the House, I should like to reply to the Amendment.

Mr. Lubbock: I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) would allow me to proceed. He knows that I would not absent myself from the Chamber unless I had important business elsewhere. I have already explained to him that I have been engaged on a Select Committee this afternoon, which, in my opinion—

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Heffer rose—

Mr. Lubbock: May I be allowed to finish my sentence?
I have been engaged in a Select Committee which, in my opinion, is of greater importance to the country than the question whether we have 20 or 25 elected hereditary peers in the second Chamber.

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]

Mr. Heffer: I accept that the hon. Member considers it more important to serve on a Select Committee than in this Chamber. But there are 12 Liberal Members in the House of Commons, and not one of them has been here to consider a Bill of great constitutional importance to the future of the country. I should also like to remind the hon. Member that it was the Liberal Party which raised the whole question of peers against the Commons. They are the people who—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. Some of the difficulty which has arisen, from what I have seen, is that hon. Members forget that they should address the Chair and not each other across the Floor. I hope they will remember that.

Mr. Lubbock: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Walton realises that the speech that I am attempting to make, without very much success, is against the Amendment, because I believe that it is

quite improper that the hereditary peers should be allowed the privileges which are suggested for them by hon. Members on this side of the House. So perhaps I will take him with me that far, at any rate. I do not think that this is a great constitutional issue. The whole thing is a storm in a teacup. I am shocked and astonished that the House of Commons should waste so much of its valuable time discussing what to me is essentially a very trivial issue.
I was present on Monday evening for the Second Reading of the Housing Bill, and I can see tonight in the Chamber many hon. Members who were not present on that occasion. If I were asked which is the more important of those debates, I would say—

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. Sir Myer. What has the Housing Bill on Monday got to do with an Amendment about hereditary peers?

The Temporary Chairman: Precisely. That is exactly what the Chair has been wondering. I ask the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) to address himself to the substance of the Amendment, to address the Chair and not to look directly opposite to provoke opposition.

Mr. Lubbock: Surely the Chair should allow me to defend myself and my party against the accusation that we have treated this debate lightly. I am trying to explain to you, Sir Myer, that I consider that this is a light matter in comparison with many others that have been discussed in the House this week, and, in particular, that I did not notice the benches as crowded as they are this evening when a matter of far greater importance to the country was under discussion on Monday afternoon.
I did not notice the hon. Lady the Member for Petersfield (Miss Ouennell)—

The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member for Orpington will respect the Ruling of the Chair. I am satisfied with his explanation for his absence this afternoon. Will he please proceed to deal with the Amendment?

Mr. Lubbock: I understand that while I was not in the Chamber this afternoon, but was engaged in a Select Committee, a number of hon. Members from this side of the Committee attacked me for


my absence, in particular, the right hon. Member for one of the Flint constituencies—I cannot remember which, but it must be a very funny place if it sent him here.

Mr. David Crouch: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has been addressing the Committee for the last quarter of an hour, but he has not mentioned the Amendment for a moment. Could you, Sir Myer, direct him that he should come to the point quickly?

The Temporary Chairman: I know that the hour is late, which may account for some of the behaviour of hon. Members, but I must tell the hon. Member for Orpingion, with respect, that if he intends to persist in defending himself for his absence this afternoon, which I think he has abundantly done, I shall have no option but to ask him to cease making his contribution.

Mr. Lubbock: I am delighted, Sir Myer, to hear that I have convinced you. I hope that hon. Members who have not allowed me to make my speech in an orderly and effective way will agree to withdraw the scurrilous remarks which they have made both during my speech and prior to my entry into the Chamber at 10 p.m.
I was attempting to show that the issue whether we have 20 or 75 hereditary peers elected by their fellows is of no consequence. I cannot understand why the Committee has spent so much time on it. Surely if we decide as a matter of principle that we intend to eliminate the hereditary peers from another place, the faster we reach that situation the better.
Why do hon. Members on this side of the Committee try to delay the implementation of a principle on which all sides are agreed, unless it is that they realise that hereditary peers are inclined to support the Conservative Party and they want to preserve the shrinking vestiges of their power in another place? That, I believe, is what motivates hon. Members on this side of the Committee, as it has all along, in considering the powers of another place—ever since 1910, when the Parliament Act was passed. In this debate we have had echoes of the reactionary speeches made 50 years ago.
To talk of this as a big constitutional issue, as did the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams), is a gross exaggeration. If the Committee agrees in principle to eliminate the hereditary peers from another place as quickly as possible, then, in logic, it must reject these Amendments. The speeches of Conservative hon. Members on this side will be taken for what they are—an attempt to preserve the party political power of the Tories in another place for as long as possible.

Sir D. Glover: I will try to reduce the temperature of the debate and to bring the Committee to the Amendment. We had a most interesting and vitriolic speech from the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), but he did not mention the Amendment once in 20 minutes.
I want to make my position quite clear. I voted against Second Reading of the Bill. I do not like the Bill, because it is not the right answer to the problem. If it were not for the jealousy of the Lower Chamber—on both sides—of having a second Chamber with any power, we should probably be debating this issue in a totally different atmosphere. But we are so hag-ridden with 500 years of history that we are not prepared to let anybody have any power to control us.
It would be far better if we were to debate this matter in a totally free atmosphere—although that cannot be done in politics—and tried to produce a second Chamber with equal, or semi-equal, powers to ours, but we are not doing that. The Bill has had a Second Reading, but some hon. Members on either side of the Committee do not think that this is the answer to the problem. We are not happy that the Prime Minister of the day, whether he is the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) or the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) or some other person at present unknown, should with the then Leader of the Opposition decide on how to produce a second Chamber.
What influence would a second Chamber created under those conditions have? It would be bound to be a lap dog or a "Hush Puppy" Chamber and would certainly not have authority. The present second Chamber has a great deal of authority because it is independent of


anything the Prime Minister of the day might do. Of course, it works much better when the Tory Party is in power than when the Labour Party is in power. I do not say that there should be no alteration in the composition of the Chamber. If I were on the benches opposite, I would want radical change of another place, but being in favour of radical change does not mean that we should produce an even greater nonsense than we have at present.
Many hon. Members opposite who voted for the Second Reading of the Bill do not actually support it. Many on this side did not vote because a free vote was allowed on the Opposition side. There is no great enthusiasm for the Bill. I admit that this Amendment is open to much objection from people who take an egalitarian line, but it is far more logical and would give another place a far greater feeling of independence than do the Clauses of the Bill as it stands. As the Bill stands, we would have a so-called second Chamber basically appointed by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition of the day, but if this Amendment were carried there would be a microcosm in the second Chamber independent of anyone. That would be a good thing to have in a second Chamber which, if it has any relevance in our constitution, should be there to control the House of Commons.
The whole discussion about the composition, appointment, or election of a second Chamber is that the House of Commons, Tory, Labour or Liberal, after 500 years of Parliamentary government would hate like hell to have another Chamber with power to control effectively what we do in this place. It is rather like shadow boxing. The Front Benches have got together and said, "What can we produce which will have a facade of decency, which will be a revising chamber, but which will have no power and which will not be a nuisance to anybody in the House of Commons?" I should prefer an elected Chamber which had nearly the same power as we have, with perhaps not the same powers on finance.

11.15 p.m.

The Amendment merely seeks to give some small percentage of election to the second Chamber which is not controlled by the Establishment of the day—not

the Establishment of the Labour Party at that particular moment, nor the Establishment of the Tory Party at that particular moment. I accept the weaknesses in our argument. We want an element of election by a group of people who are not excessively wise and who are not excessively stupid. It would have a hereditary principle behind it, and I know this is not acceptable to the other side. This group would elect people who would not be controlled by the Whips or by the machine, whether it be Labour, Liberal, or Conservative. In other words, we want a really independent element in the other place.

Mr. John Ellis: Why have hereditary peers in the Lords? Why not hereditary butchers, bakers and candlestick makers?

Sir D. Glover: I said that I oppose the Bill. It is a bad Bill. The basis of selection for the other place is thoroughly bad. The Amendment tries to bring a small degree of independent election into the Lords. I do not object to the view that candlestick makers, butchers and bakers should have some right in the election, but that is not the Amendment. The Amendment seeks to give the hereditary peers the right to elect some people who at that moment would not be under the control of the then established thinking of the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, or the Liberal Party.
If we are to have a second Chamber which is worth a damn, a degree of independence there would be a very' good thing. The Amendment is a serious one, not a wrecking one. I do not think there would be a majority on this side for the Lords to be elected in toto by the hereditary peers. Knowing that there is an enormous majority in the House of Commons on a free vote against the privileged appointment by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition of people to form the second Chamber, we are trying to produce a very small but very important independent element. If this Committee could forget its prejudices about hereditary peers, within the context of the Bill it would make the second Chamber a better second Chamber if it-accepted the Amendment.

Mr. Peart: We have had a good debate. I put on record at the outset that I do not accept that this is a trivial


matter. I say that especially to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). [Interruption.] That is my opinion. We can be judged together. The hon. Member for Orpington is entitled to his opinion, but I would rather he stood if he wishes to interrupt. That is not being pompous. I hate to be a school master, but I think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will regret his contribution to the debate tonight.
There are differences here of great principle. I accept the view of some of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) concisely portrayed the whole development of our democracy, and I hope that hon. Members will look carefully at his speech. I respect the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) for the way in which he put the Amendment to the Committee. I disagree with him fundamentally, but I believe that he is sincere in what he proposes. I never complain when hon. Members are sincere in their views, although I may disagree.
The hon. Gentleman sought to defend the hereditary principle and showed how important his Amendment is in raising a fundamental issue. It is on the question of principle that I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the Amendment. for the reasons which my hon. Friend the Member for Walton and others gave.
We could have a substantial debate on whether the second Chamber should be elected or nominated. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) put his view, but I would argue that that is not the fundamental issue behind the Amendment.

Sir D. Glover: I said that we had given a Second Reading to the Bill and that we were now dealing with a narrow point.

Mr. Peart: Yes, but the question whether there should be an elected second Chamber or a nominated second Chamber is not raised by the Amendment. I do not say that it is out of order, but it raises another major issue which divides hon. Members, and not just on party lines.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, in defending the hereditary principle, said that his figure of 75 peers as

stated in the Amendment was not an arbitrary figure. In my view, he was right when he said that this question went to the heart of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman put to us a series of interesting philosophical and political arguments, the relevance of which I do not deny, and I certainly take his Amendment seriously, as he asked us to do.
The hon. Gentleman argued that there had been great assaults on the hereditary principle, and he went into the history of the matter. We had an interesting discussion about the qualities and benefits of the system in the Soviet Union and other countries. It would be wrong for me to follow that line, but I must express disagreement with the hon. Gentleman when he says that we are living in an age of diminishing virtue. I intervened to refer to the development of Nazi totalitarianism in a sophisticated Western European country in the 1930s. I believe my view to be right. I am not as pessimistic as the hon. Gentleman is, though I should be trespassing on the time of the Committee if I were to go into the reasons now.
The hon. Gentleman argued that since this is an age of diminishing virtue, it is necessary to go back. That was the impression which he gave to me of his argument. But the Amendment, by defending and sustaining the hereditary principle, would frustrate the desire to have a reformed second Chamber, a desire which has been accepted in principle by many people of all parties who believe sincerely that the time has come for reform. The Bill and the White Paper elaborate this; we are now dealing specifically with this immediate point.
The intention of the Amendments is to provide for the permanent representation of the hereditary peerage by 75 peers elected to sit, with voting rights, in the reformed House of Lords, irrespective of age or attendance qualification. It is not clear whether all peers by succession, including peers of Scotland and Ireland, are to take part in that election. It is to be presumed that the Scots would do so since they have all been members of the House since the Peerage Act, 1963, and that the Irish would not.
Schemes for the reform of the House of Lords based on election by the hereditary peers or a proportion of their


numbers have been frequently brought forward both before and since the reform of 1911, but they have never found favour with the parties on my side, on the left, and those who believe in a radical solution.

The Amendment would conflict with the three basic principles of reform stated in paragraph 5 of the White Paper:

"(a) the hereditary basis of membership should be eliminated;
(b) no one party should possess a permanent majority;
(c) in normal circumstances the government of the city should be able to secure a reasonable working majority;"

Most hon. Members opposite who have spoken tonight have taken a contrary view. They defended the hereditary principle fundamentally and rejected the philosophy that I am putting forward. The hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe), whose views I always respect, strongly supported the Amendment.

Sir D. Glover: This is a very serious matter. When one puts down such an Amendment one is not saying that the figure of 75 is sacrosanct. We would probably accept 25. The question is whether there should be a principle of election among the hereditary peers. The right hon. Gentleman has been rather pedantic in his arguments.

Mr. Peart: I conceded the argument of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. I said that his figure of 75 was not arbitrary. I said that he was arguing the principle. I am not keeping him to the figure of 75. The main argument is that there should be in a new reformed House of Lords a certain element which would be based on the hereditary principle. I am not being pedantic, and I am taking the argument seriously. It is a matter of major principle.
11.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Windsor very strongly argued that we should have a kind of ballast. I think that he later used the words "a balance" between different sections and the parties in a reformed second Chamber. He argued that this element of hereditary peers there would be preferable to cross-benchers. There is virtue in his argument if one accepts the hereditary principle, but I reject this.
The hon. Member also argued that if the Amendment were carried there would be more opportunities in a reformed second Chamber to have a greater proportion of younger members. I do not accept this. The argument was rejected by my hon. Friends the Members for Walton and Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and others, who said that if younger people wished to enter the hurly-burly of politics there are opportunities in this House.
But the hon. Gentleman also developed another point which is important. It quite rightly roused the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) to defend some of the great hereditary titles we have and the great positions in the State—the Earl Marshal, the Lord Great Chamberlain and other great public figures responsible for our ceremonial. I agree with him. They have done wonderful service for the country and both sides will acknowledge it. In rejecting the Amendment, I do not mean any disrespect to the Duke of Norfolk and the others. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to give a specific answer, but I cannot do so now. This is something which the Lord Chancellor should perhaps examine. I certainly appreciate the point put by the right hon. Gentleman and I join in his tribute to these public figures, whom we should not denigrate.

Mr. Crouch: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the place of youth is in the House of Commons and not the House of Lords? I hope that he will correct that view if that is so.

Mr. Peart: I said that a young, ambitious politician has his opportunities to use the normal processes of democracy which we have all enjoyed ourselves.

Mr. Powell: In what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the great officers of State, he appeared to be conceding that there was some force in the point made by my right hon. and hon. Friends, and he said that this was a point which the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor might well consider. Can he explain more fully what he has in mind? Does he mean that consideration might be given to the question whether ex


officio these great officers should be Members of the new House of Lords? If not, what was the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman's expression?

Mr. Peart: I would not like to be committed precisely. Nothing has been decided. All I am saying is that I think that the right hon. Gentleman for Kingston-upon-Thames made a very important and valid point. I said that this should be considered sympathetically and that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor should perhaps look at it. I am speaking off the cuff and I promise the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames that I will follow this up.

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. We are now dealing line by line with the Committee stage of the Bill. The Leader of the House tells my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that he will give consideration to the point he raised, but he does not say that, on Report, he will bring in an Amendment. How do hon. Members decide how to vote if he does not know the answer to the argument?

Mr. Peart: I am surprised at that intervention. I am not departing from the Amendment. I am resisting it. There was an intervention by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, whose views I respect, as I respect views of the hon. Member for Ormskirk. I hope that the right hon. Member will realise that the reply I gave was right in the circumstances. I have gone as far as I can and I therefore recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the Amendment for the reasons I have given.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: The debate to which the right hon. Gentleman has just replied embraced Amendment No. 68, standing in my name. It is similar to the Amendment eloquently moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings). I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman decided to reply to one Amendment and not the other. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Gentleman should have spoken earlier."] I would have spoken earlier, but the right hon. Gentleman rose to speak and I was unable to do so.
Some of the objections which the right hon. Gentleman made on technical grounds to the excellent Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire would be met by the Amendment standing in my name and in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and others of my hon. Friends. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was not clear whether we were including certain categories of hereditary peer, and he referred to the constitutional change whereby the peers of Scotland had become peers in another place.

Amendment No. 68 suggests that the holders of hereditary peerages in England, Scotland, Great Britain or the United Kingdom up to a number of 20 would be enabled to continue in the House of Lords. The number is not important. My hon. Friend stressed that the principle was important. We are trying to establish the principle of the retention of a proportion of hereditary peers.

An hon. Member opposite asked why hereditary peers should have representation when there were not to be representatives of other avocations. The difficulty about dealing with that understandable question is that we are confined by the rules of order to discussing this Amendment, but later Amendments would provide for exactly what the hon. Gentleman wanted, namely, representation of different interests and professions within the realm. What we are asking by this Amendment is that the body of hereditary peers should be treated as an estate or interest and have a modest representation.

We ask that partly for the sake of continuity, partly to have a younger element in the reformed House of Lords, and partly as a salutary corrective to the exaggerated claims which are made for the process of democratic election. [Interruption.] In this country we have an elected House and we have a hereditary House. It is only hon. Members who say that everybody who comes here by election is more intelligent, more able, more worthy than any member sitting in another place. It is only hon. Members who are so insulated from reality and so cocksure of themselves that they can say that. It is not so. All systems of Government are imperfect, but my last


reason for saying that a proportion of herditary peers should be retained in Parliament is as a salutary corrective to arrogance of that kind.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin)

rose in his place and claimed to move. That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 139. Noes 32.

Division No. 66.]
AYES
[11.39 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Fowler, Gerry
Moyle, Roland


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Murray, Albert


Bence, Cyril
Freeson, Reginald
Oakes, Gordon


Bishop, E, S.
Gardner, Tony
Ogden, Eric


Blackburn, F.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
O'Malley, Brian


Blenkinsop Arthur
Gregory, Arnold
Oram, Albert E.


Booth, Albert
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Orbach, Maurice


Boyden, James
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Oswald, Thomas


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hannan, William
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brooks, Edwin
Harper, Joseph
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Pentland, Norman


Buchan, Norman
Henig, Stanley
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hilton, W. S.
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hooley, Frank
Rees, Merlyn


Carmichael, Neil
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howie, W.
Richard, Ivor


Coe, Denis
Hoy, James
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Conlan, Bernard
Hunter, Adam
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hynd, John
Silverman, Julius


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)
Slater, Joseph


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Janner, Sir Barnett
Small, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Judd, Frank
Swingler, Stephen


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lawson, George
Taverne, Dick


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lubbock, Eric
Urwin, T. W.


do Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Varley, Eric G.


Dell, Edmund
McCann, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Doig, Peter
MacColl, James
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Dunnett, Jack
Macdonald, A. H.
Wellbeloved, James


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
McGuire, Michael
White, Mrs. Eirene


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)
Whitlock, William


Eadie, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
Wilkins, W. A.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Ellis, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


English, Michael
Manuel, Archie
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Ennals, David
Mendelson, J. J.
Winnick, David


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Millan, Bruce
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Woof, Robert


Faulds, Andrew
Milne, Edward (Blyth)



Fernyhough, E.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Finch, Harold
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Ford, Ben
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Neil McBride.


Forrester, John
Morris, John (Aberavon)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir peter


Biffen, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Biggs-Davison, John
Hastings, Stephen
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Jopling, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cooke, Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Waddington, David


Crouch, David
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Ward, Dame Irene


Crowder, F. P.
Neave, Airey



Dalkeith, Earl of
Osborn, John (Hallam)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Eyre, Reginald
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Farr, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Sir Charles Mott-Radelyffe.

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—

Mr. English: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 15, leave out 'by succession'.

This Amendment is consequential, for Division purposes, on new Clause 2—Hereditary peerages not to convey right to membership of House of Lords:
The power of the Crown to create hereditary peerages conveying rights of membership of the House of Lords is hereby abolished.

The Committee divided: Ayes 27. Noes 144.

Division No. 67.]
AYES
[11.47 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Goodhew, Victor
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Biffen, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. SirWalter
Jopling, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cooke, Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Crouch, David
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Waddington, David


Dalkeith, Earl of
Neave, Airey
Ward, Dame Irene


Farr, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. John Biggs-Davison and


Clover, Sir Douglas
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Mr. Stephen Hastings.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Fowler, Gerry
Moyle, Roland


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Murray, Albert


Bishop, E. S.
Freeson, Reginald
Oakes, Gordon


Blackburn, F.
Gardner, Tony
Ogden, Eric


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
O'Malley, Brian


Booth, Albert
Gregory, Arnold
Oram, Albert E.


Boyden, James
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Orbach, Maurice


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Oswald, Thomas


Brooks, Edwin
Hannan, William
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Harper, Joseph
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Buchan, Norman
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Pentland, Norman


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Heffer, Eric S.
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Henig, Stanley
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)



Hilton, W. S.
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Carmichael, Neil
Hooley, Frank
Rees, Merlyn


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Coe, Denis
Howie, W.
Richard, Ivor


Coleman, Donald
Hoy, James
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Crawshaw, Richard
Hunter, Adam
Sheldon, Robert


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hynd, John
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)
Silverman, Julius


Crowder, F. P.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Slater, Joseph


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham. S.)
Small, William


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Judd, Frank
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lawson, George
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Taverne, Dick


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lever, L, M. (Ardwick)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


de Frietas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lubbock, Eric
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Dell, Edmund
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Urwin, T. W.


Dickens, James
McCann, John
Varley, Eric G.


Doig, Peter
MacColl, James
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunnett, Jack
Macdonald, A. H.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
McGulre, Michael
Wellbeloved, James


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)



Eadie, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
White, Mrs. Eirene


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Whitlock, William


Ellis, John
Mallalieu. J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wilkins, W. A.


English, Michael
Manuel, Archie
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Ennals, David
Mendelson, J. J.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Millan, Bruce
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Winnick, David


Faulds, Andrew
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Fernyhough, E.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Woof, Robert


Finch, Harold
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ford, Ben
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Forrester, John
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Mr. Neil McBride.

The Chairman: Order. I think that the Committee is acquainted with the business with which it has to deal—

Sir D. Glover: Sir D. Glover rose—

The Chairman: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman until I have concluded this Question.

The Question is, that the Amendment be made.

Hon. Members: No.

Hon, Members: Aye.

The Chairman: I think the Noes have it. The Noes have it.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order. Several hon. Members distinctly called out "Aye," in response to the previous

Question. Surely this means that there must be a Division.

The Chairman: I endeavoured to collect the voices. I heard some "Ayes", but I was not aware that the "Ayes" were persisting—

Mr. Heffer: Yes, they were.

The Chairman: Order. As I appear to have misheard, I think that I should declare a Division.

The Committee divided: Ayes 18, Noes, 143.

Division No. 68.]
AYES
[11.57 p.m.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Ellis, John
Lubbock, Eric


Booth, Albert
Faulds, Andrew
McNamara, J. Kevin


Brooks, Edwin
Foot, Michael (Ebbw vale)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gardner, Tony
Silverman, Julius


Crawshaw, Richard
Heffer, Eric S.



Dickens, James
Henig, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Dunnett, Jack
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mr. Robert Sheldon and




Mr. Michael English.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Oswald, Thomas


Biffen, John
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hannan, William
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Bishop, E S.
Harper, Joseph
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Blackburn, F.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pentland, Norman


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hastings, Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boyden, James
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hoy, James
Pym, Francis


Bromley-Davenport. Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hunter, Adam
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Brown, Bot (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne. W.)
Hynd, John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Buchan, Norman
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Snenb'gh)
Rees, Merlyn


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Janner. Sir Barnett
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Coe, Denis
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Coleman, Donald
Jopling, Michael
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Conlan, Bernard
Judd, Frank
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Cooke, Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lawson, George
Scott-Hopkins, James


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Crouch, David
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Slater, Joseph


Crowder, F. P.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Small, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
McCann, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Dalyell, Tam
MacColl, James
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Davidson. Arthur (Accrington)
Macdonald, A. H.
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
McGuIre, Michael
Taverne, Dick


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)




Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Maclennan, Robert
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Dell, Edmund
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Urwin, T. W.


Doig, Peter
Manuel, Archie
Varley, Eric G.


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Miltan, Bruce
Wadding ton, David


Eadie, Alex
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Edwards, Willam (Merioneth)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Ennals, David
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Whitlock, William


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wilkins, W. A.


Eyre, Reginald
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, Alan Lee (Homchurch)


Farr, John
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fernyhough, E.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Ford, Ben
Moyle, Roland
Winnick, David


Forrester, John
Murray, Albert
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Fowler, Gerry
Neave, Airey
Woof, Robert


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Oakes, Gordon



Glover, Sir Douglas
Ogden, Eric
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Goodhew, Victor
O'Maltey, Brian
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Oram, Albert E.
Mr. Niel McBride.


Gregory, Arnold
Orbach, Maurice

To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Callaghan.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

PROCEDURE

Mr. Russell Johnston discharged from the Select Committee on Procedure; Mr. David Howell added.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

NATIONAL EXHIBITION CENTRE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Miller.]

12.6 a.m.

Mr. Edward Milne: There is general agreement that Britain needs a national exhibition centre. However, controversy has raged long and wide about the type of centre required and particularly about the raising of the necessary finance; how it should be raised and from where it should come.
On 14th June, 1968, the Board of Trade issued a statement indicating the progress that had been made on the subject to that date. It pointed out that in August 1967 it had been announced by the President of the Board of Trade that, following the decision that the Crystal Palace site was unsuitable for a national exhibition centre, a committee under the chairmanship of Lord Brown had been set up to study the problems of finding an alternative site and of establishing an exhibition centre. That committee, which consisted of representatives of the Confederation of British Industry, the British National Export Council, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Greater London Council and representatives drawn from interested Government Departments, drew attention to a possible site in the London Borough of Hillingdon.
I do not wish to concentrate too closely on the question of a site. I will confine myself to the principles involved, the need for speed and the value to Britain of siting an exhibition centre at an early date. As the Board of Trade statement pointed out:
The next step is to solve the problem of finance as the Government cannot in the light of the general economic situation undertake on its own the considerable capital expenditure involved.

I will come to that later. First, however, I wish to draw attention to the history of the subject from the point of view of exhibition sites in Britain.
British industry has been seeking the best way of exhibiting its wares since the closing of the British Industries Fair in 1957. Many trade associations and firms are dissatisfied with the existing facilities for mounting trade fairs in this country. The F.B.I. report of 1959 stated that the existing facilities in London were out of date and compared unfavourably with those abroad. At the same time, the general conclusion was reached that trade fairs could and would play an increasingly important rôle in the promotion of exports, particularly in Europe. It is that aspect of the exhibition centre that I particularly want to deal with tonight.
In 1962, as the Board of Trade said, the new exhibition centre at Crystal Palace was financially viable. Something like £12 million to £15 million was considered necessary and would have been raised by the Government, the L.C.C. and private enterprise in equal shares. For a variety of reasons, Crystal Palace fell out of favour, one of the reasons being the unsuitability of the access roads. Then a committee under Lord Brown suggested Northolt as a possible site, with reasonable proximity to London Airport and good rail connections.
One must bear in mind that there were powerful pressures against the need for an exhibition centre and, no doubt, the Board of Trade was pressurised. Arguments are advanced against the idea of an exhibition centre. There is a school of thought—I hope we shall hear more about this later—that jet transport and technical journals have drastically altered the situation and have in some way diminished the need for exhibition centres. It is felt that specialist buyers have all the access they need to learn what is available in the markets in which they operate and where they can obtain the articles they require.
This is in some ways a follow-up attitude of the then President of the Board of Trade, who is now, safely or otherwise, in another place, and who said that he would not be justified in supporting the organisation of a general international exhibition in this country. It is a pity that this attitude was taken, for the British Industries Fair, which had an


honourable history and did a tremendous amount of good for the export trade and the prestige of this country, was a good and cheap scheme not only for larger firms in the Castle Bromwich area but for many of the smaller firms in this country.
What is even more important, and what we have to consider against the background of the traditions of the British Industries Fair, is that a new exhibition centre must have these same standards. The British Industries Fair provided a very careful check, and I have been told that firms were proud that their products were good enough for that fair. Exporters and customers, too, recognised this fact. Indeed, particularly in the consumer field, we could do with a check of this kind at the moment, because the rigid standards set for goods and firms at the British Industries Fair would not only enhance our reputation abroad and improve our export figures, but would also be the means of giving the home consumer a higher standard of product.
It is therefore to be deplored that Britain has lagged so far behind the Continent in the last few decades in providing exhibition facilities comparable with the best in Europe. Powerful voices have been raised in this matter. At the end of January the Chairman of the British Export Council asked Lord Brown to give the exhibition project "a good hard shove", and the Director-General of the same Export Council said that
Britain must be able to offer the world's finest exhibition facilities in or close to London. Nothing else will do.
I hope that these words will be heeded—and heeded quickly. It therefore seems to me, after weighing up the arguments on the matter, that the question—Do we need on exhibition centre?—has been overwhelmingly answered in the affirmative.
That brings me to the point of what form should that centre take. I have talked with firms in my constituency and throughout the northern region about this matter—to people who have had and still have considerable experience of trade fairs and exhibitions and of selling abroad From talks which I have had with firms and their representatives, it seems imperative that the building for an exhibition centre or fair should be similar in style to that of the Hanover Trade Fair.
Confusion exists in many quarters, and there are different viewpoints on the type of permanent site which would be required, but I am told on reliable authority that to the planners an exhibition site simply means a permanent building which can be used from time to time for various trade exhibitions. That simply is not good enough. I hope that we shall not get this type of exhibition centre for reasons of financial stringency. It is no solution to the problem which we are discussing.
In my view the word "permanent" should mean not only a permanent exhibition building but also a permanent exhibition of products which are available to the trade throughout the year. I will try to give some idea of the layout which would make that possible. Firms in the region moving into London could use this permanent exhibition of products in order to meet overseas buyers. It would be possible with a site of this description and a layout of this description, when overseas buyers are in London, for a firm to move from Newcastle, Edinburgh, Liverpool or Birmingham into the London site in order to meet the overseas buyers at the showrooms where they have this permanent exhibition.
Although I have not discussed this matter with the Export Council, I have discussed it with firms in my constituency and elsewhere. It is felt, I believe, by the Export Council and by many prominent industrialists that the exhibition should be in two sections. The layout which seems to be generally envisaged is that on such a site could be built three or four large halls suitable for exhibitions such as the Motor Show, the Dairy Show, the Ideal Homes Exhibition and other similar ventures. Surrounding the main hall should be a series of buildings of seven to ten storeys high, on a corridor principle, with showrooms on either side, similar to Halle 18 at the Hanover Fair. Variations in space in this part of the building would enable different types of trade to exhibit. Each of the halls in this series of buildings could be specified and categorised on the type of product sold. The various trade associations could move into sections of a building of this description and there would be a permanent exhibition centred on the main hall. For the success of a centre of this kind, it would be necessary


for both British and overseas firms to take part, because this should be an international fair, although primarily and predominantly British in its set-up.
A vital aspect of the whole idea of an international fair is its timing. Here again we can take advantage from the timing of other major fairs in Europe. We could arrange for a British Fair to avoid any of the dates of other international fairs and draw advantage to a British fair by this arrangement. I will not list the dates of the various established fairs in Frankfurt, Leipzig, Milan and other places, but I suggest from a look at the list of fairs in Europe during the year the proposed British fair should be in early February. World trade buyers who regularly attend the fairs I have mentioned would find a 10 days fair in Britain at the end of February ideal timing for a variety of reasons, not least the availability of accommodation and transport in the London area.
Earlier today my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade introduced a Bill on tourism. This represents one of the invisible exports which could flow from a fair of this kind. I do not need in a short debate of this kind, even if I had the time, to enumerate the advantages of invisible exports which would flow from a venture of this nature. Deciding on an international centre now—this is why speed is imperative—would mean that firms already participating in exhibitions and fairs could have a complete image very soon of what the centre sets out to be. They could then lay plans accordingly.
Talking with representatives of firms which have participated in existing exhibitions, one gets the impression of a great deal of waste of capital involved in ventures of this kind. One knows of various fairs held throughout the country at which stalls have to be erected and cleared away and of fairs being held in unsuitable surroundings. The advantages of a permanent fair are obvious. Already there is sufficient amount of this type of activity within trade to make the fullest possible use of buildings of this kind. It is also essential that from the start the Government should have a stake in such a centre and the Board of Trade and the British National Export Council should be well

represented on an overall committee. In many ways, it would be easier to raise finance than might appear at first glance.
I noticed in The Times the bank aid is being sought and merchant bankers are being approached on this matter. I hope that the door will not be closed to this type of venture because I think financing of an exhibition of this kind can be done in other ways. I do not ignore this factor but it should not be the dominant one. British Weeks for instance, some of which have been reasonably successful, are coming to an end. I do not have at my disposal details about what has been spent on British Weeks, but this sort of expenditure could be directed towards investment in the centre.
Investment by the Government is a vital matter. The Government have staked the whole of their future and that of the country on winning the balance of payments battle. I do not need to demonstrate exactly what a fair could do in this direction. As with the Hanover Fair, firms could sign a lease for seven years, thus guaranteeing the rent and the firm's participation in the fair for that period. To a large extent the fairs could be self-perpetuating. Friends have told me of their visits to Hanover Fair in the mid-fifties when they saw the potential particularly against the sad background of the decline of the British Industries Fair. They said how intrigued they were with the financial methods adopted by the fair authorities and the German Government. The success and history of this fair show how, Phoenixlike, it rose out of the rubble of postwar Europe and, further, how it was assisted to do so by British finance. Today it is acknowledged to be one of the largest and most successful fairs in the world.
Many of my friends in the North-East may express surprise at my advocacy of a southern centre, but the advantage of an exhibition centre in the South is obvious and is accepted by those in the Northern Region. I am sure that this would be of enormous assistance and benefit to the firms now settled in and around the Blyth constituency. When one examines, for instance, the excellent Buyer's Guide for 1969, which has been issued today by the North-East Development Council, and which lists about


4,000 firms with national and international repute, one realises the value to be gained from such a venture by those of us in the Northern Region if only we can get on with the job at the centre and if we can get the Government Department concerned, along with industry and along with the other Government Departments, to get a move on in this matter. We cannot wait until 1972. It would also take many costly showrooms out of London and reduce the costs for many businesses. Time is not on our side. I hope, not only that my hon. Friend will give us a satisfactory answer, but that the Department will get moving and will treat this matter with the urgency that it deserves.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) has raised a matter on which the Government have given considerable thought. Hon. Members will have read no doubt the recommendation of the Estimates Committee in its Sixth Report that
The Board of Trade should produce estimates for a national exhibition centre building at Northolt as soon as possible, and should take the earliest subsequent opportunity to discuss with industry how the necessary funds could be raised for the project 
and the observations of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in the White Paper presented to the House.
From the earliest times trade fairs have played an increasingly important rôle as places where the products of many industries and of many countries may be seen, inspected, compared and bought. The Government's policy of supporting British firms taking part in collective group displays at important trade fairs overseas emphasises the encouragement which the Government give to British exporters to use these trade fairs as a feature of their marketing activities.
Hon. Members will, I am sure, be interested to know that in 1968 5,300 firms were supported by the Board of Trade at 239 events in 38 countries. There is also the considerable support, both financial and direct, which the Government provide in organising British weeks and special store promotions of British goods in cities abroad. These are ways in which the products of this

country can be taken to the buyers. The growth of these activities over recent years is evidence of their value to our exporters.
The other side of the coin is getting foreign buyers to come to see the products in this country. Many of the trade fairs which take place here are internationally renowned, and many thousands of buyers come to see them. Information about these trade fairs is published in a four-language booklet prepared by the Board of Trade and widely distributed by the Government's commercial representatives abroad.
There is, in addition, the Missions Scheme administered for the Government by the British National Export Council. Under this scheme considerable financial assistance is given towards the cost of bringing selected parties of foreign businessmen here to see the goods we have to offer. And, in the reverse direction, we assist with the cost of sending groups of British businessmen abroad to seek out export business.
There is no doubt that considerable export business results from these arrangements, but there is still a gap to be filled. We recognise that exhibition facilities are not sufficient to accommodate all the trade fairs, particularly those featuring large industrial equipment, and of the size such as are now held in some European exhibition centres. This is a situation which we should all like to remedy as quickly as possible. Industry has rightly and repeatedly emphasised the need, but no means have yet been found by which the undoubted interest in firms, in trade associations and in Chambers of Commerce can be translated into a form of tangible support.
A few years ago, as my hon. Friend said, when the proposal to build an exhibition centre at the Crystal Palace was under consideration, it had been supposed that industry would contribute to the costs, with the Government and the Greater London Council. This proposal failed, first because the Government were advised that the terms of the trusteeship of the land made it impossible for it to be used as a security for a debenture, and then because of serious problems with regard to costs and, particularly, road access.
In these circumstances, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade decided that an alternative suitable site must be sought. The result was a site in the vicinity of Northolt which, in the view of the experts, is particularly suitable for a national exhibition centre. It has convenient access to Central London both by road and by rail, and it is not far from London Airport. Moreover, it is conveniently placed from the point of view of bringing in exhibits, particularly heavy and bulky industrial products, from the Midlands and the North.
I welcome the unselfish attitude of my hon. Friend towards the placing of such a centre in the South. However, the problem remains one of finance, and it is a large problem. We had hoped that some contribution towards the capital costs would have been provided by industry, but in this we have been disappointed. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has recently had discussions with the Confederation of British Industry concerning proposals which have been made by a private developer; these proposals are now being considered. The Government hope that some way will be found to bring about this desirable addition to exhibition premises in this country.
My hon. Friend suggested that, perhaps, jet transport had altered the need for specialist exhibitions, yet he later mentioned the Hanover Fair. He knows that other large exhibition centres have been developed at Frankfurt, Cologne, Paris and Brussels, to mention only a few. Their success and growth is evidence not only of the important part which they play in promoting trade, and particularly the export trade of the host country, but also of the valuable and

substantial foreign exchange earnings which result from the participation of foreign exhibitors and the influx of foreign visitors to these events. I have no doubt that a national exhibition centre comparable with those centres in Europe which have been developed since the last war is not beyond our resources, given the wholehearted support which their industry has given to these exhibitions in those countries.
In present circumstances, when the Government must consider very carefully any proposals involving the use of public funds, the evidence of a substantial and firm commitment of support by those sectors of industry which urge upon the Government the need for a national exhibition centre is vital to any further progress.
My hon. Friend has tonight outlined a most interesting and highly detailed scheme, on which he has obviously spent a great deal of time and study. I know that he will forgive me if I do not follow him too closely into a detailed discussion of the type of centre which he has in mind, but I assure him sincerely that we in the Board of Trade are well aware of the difficulties which are faced by many of our exhibitors, who frequently would like to welcome as hosts trade exhibitors to this country but are unable to do so. We shall not just note what my hon. Friend has said. We shall actively consider it, because he has given us tonight a detailed examination of an interesting development. We are at one. What we must now do is find a means of accomplishing what, I am sure, we are both aiming for in the very near future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to One o'clock.

Second Reading Committee

Wednesday, 12th February, 1969

[MR. JOHN ROBERTSON in the Chair]

The Committee consisted of the following Members:


Mr. John Robertson (Chairman)


Bossom, Sir Clive (Leominster)
Maude, Mr. Angus (Stratford-on-Avorn)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Maydon, Lieutenant-Commander S. L. C.(Wells)


Channon, Mr. H. P. G. (Southend, West)



Concanaon, Mr. J. D. (Mansfield)
Mitchell, Mr. R. C. (Southampton, Test)


Davies, Mr. G. Elfed (Rhondda, East)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar (Peterborough)


Fletcher, Mr. Ted (Darlington)
Price, Mr. Christopher (Birmingham, Perry Barr)


Harvie Anderson, Miss (Renfrew, East)



Iremonger, Mr. T. L. (Ilford, North)
Royle, Mr. Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Jenkins, Mr. Hugh (Putney)
St. John-Stevas, Mr. Norman (Chelmsford)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Minister of State, Department of Education and Science)
Short, Mrs. Renée (Wolverhampton. North-East)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton and Slough)
Whitaker, Mr. Ben (Hampstead)



Mr. K. A. Bradshaw, Committee Clerk.

NATIONAL THEATRE BILL

10.30 a.m.

Resolved,
That if the proceedings on the National Theatre Bill are not completed at this day's Sitting, the Committee do meet on Wednesday next at half-past Ten o'clock.—[Miss Jennie Lee.]

10.31 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): I beg to move, That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the National Theatre Bill ought to be read a Second time.
In preparation for this morning I thought that I would refresh my memory of the debate which took place 20 years ago. My guess is that quite a number of hon. Members have done the same. I

found it fascinating in the extreme. I doubt whether a single argument will be advanced today that had not been thought about and discussed 20 long years ago.
I notice, for example, that the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Glenvil Hall, moved the Second Reading and warned the Committee:
… it is estimated that it will cost about £1 million to build a memorial theatre of the kind we contemplate, worthy of the name of Shakespeare and worthy of this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 21st January, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 440.]
We all know how money values have changed since then. Equally fascinating is to read his hope that
everyone, regardless of the state of his pocket, will be able to enjoy the plays that will be put on in this theatre. I would like to see many seats sold at sixpence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 442.]


One cannot buy a pop record or a paperback for sixpence today. However, I am sure that we endorse the sentiments that the National Theatre must be a place which gives a warm welcome to the young and all others with modest incomes.
Following the Financial Secretary came a speech by Mr. Oliver Lyttelton, now Lord Chandos. Everyone reading it will be touched by his opening remarks, where he said that he had a vested interest to declare. He went on:
My father and mother were both concerned with the original project nearly 40 years ago, and I am very glad to think that my mother lived long enough to know of the introduction of this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 443.]
Lord Chandos is Chairman of the National Theatre Board and a member of the South Bank Theatre Board. I hope that not only will he live to see the National Theatre, which he and his family have cared about so much, erected and occupied; I hope, too, that for many years he will have the pleasure of enjoying the fruits of this very important national project which he has worked so hard to establish.
The whole debate 20 years ago reflected not only the concern that the National Theatre should be truly national and should welcome all kinds of people of all classes and ages, but also that it should mean something not only to Londoners but to people all over the country.
In the financial provision which we are considering the Government are asking permission from Parliament to contribute £3¾ million, with an equivalent amount to be contributed by the G.L.C. which, in addition, is providing a valuable site. When it comes to the running costs of the National Theatre, I might point out that, in the past five years that we have had the National Theatre Company, for every £1 contributed by the Greater London Council, £4 has been contributed by the Government, channelled through the Arts Council. I underline that point to make it clear that we are not discussing a municipal theatre but the National Theatre, and we hope that that National Theatre will spend even more time than now in visiting other parts of the country and making frequent tours abroad.
When this great National Theatre is established, there may not be two companies but certainly there will have to be a much enlarged company, and those who have a special responsibility for the development of the arts in Scotland, Wales, the North and elsewhere, will join with me in rejoicing that, at long last, the National Theatre is to become a reality. It is not something which will detract from the efforts to establish first-rate theatres in other parts of the country. On the contrary, it will stimulate those activities.
I cannot resist making one more quotation, and it is from the speech of Captain Bullock, the hon. and gallant Member for Waterloo. He enlivened the proceedings by pointing out the dangers of political interference or nepotism of any kind. One cardinal feature in the preliminary years during which I have been the Minister responsible has been that this project should be essentially non-party and non-political. However much the activities of certain theatres and actors may be unwelcome in terms of our personal tastes and prejudices, one feature which sets us apart from other countries is that we are totally opposed to political control or direction in this kind of activity. Captain Bullock put the point amusingly and warned the House:
I have seen in European State theatres foreign Cabinet Ministers making little arrangements for their friends to walk on in small parts, or to be given bigger ones for which they were not fitted. I have seen it amongst the Nazis, when a tenor was removed from the Vienna Opera and a fine actor was removed from the Burgtheater to make room for a good party member who could neither act nor sing. That sort of thing must be avoided."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 454.]
I think that we would agree whole heartedly with that sentiment.
I have mentioned with gratitude and appreciation the tremendous support and help that I have had from the National Theatre Board and from Lord Chandos, its Chairman. In addition, there has been a wonderful and close liaison between County Hall and Whitehall, between those entrusted with the government of London and the government of the country.
In 1964, I was obliged to appeal to Sir William Fiske when I wanted help in many ways. I was most fortunate. He


responded with generosity and great sensitivity. Already we have begun to establish the same kind of relationships with his successor. However, before either of those two gentlemen led the Council, for many long years Sir Isaac Hayward was the guiding spirit in the old London County Council. A fitting tribute which everyone appreciated came when it was decided that a gallery on the South Bank should be called the Hayward Gallery.
We are very fortunate in that what we are discussing has the blessing of both the national Government and the Greater London Council. I venture to say that all civilised Members of the House of Commons, irrespective of party, will want the project to go ahead. Of course, there are only civilised hon. Members in this Room today.
I do not want to take hon. Members too far back into history, because we hope to make progress in the Committee this morning. However, I would remind hon. Members that this project is not a new idea. A certain London publisher named Wilson was doing his best in 1848 to win support for this concept, and it s obvious that a great country like ours wants a National Theatre.
However my dilemma in 1964 was that, two years' earlier, in agreement with the London County Council, the Government of the day set up the South Bank Theatre and Opera Board to plan and build on the South Bank a national theatre and a new opera house to replace Sadlers Wells. It was made clear to the Board in its terms of reference that the sums available to it were not to exceed £2·3 million, £1 million contributed by the Government under the terms of the 1949 Act, and up to £1·3 million by the L.C.C., which was also contributing the site under an arrangement made in 1946. In 1965, I saw sketch plans which were produced by Mr. Denys Lasdun, the architect. At that time, the estimated cost was over £14 million, exclusive of fees. That was a very very long way from the £2·3 million within which we hoped that the National Theatre Building Committee would operate. The Government made it clear that we could not contribute to the cost of the opera house, and the London County Council said that it could not go ahead on its own. Happily, a solution to the problem of Sadlers

Wells has been found in the Coliseum Theatre—

Mrs. Renée Short: Only in the short term.

Miss Lee: Yes, only short-term, but we have to live from hand to mouth in this world. It is short-term, but it is satisfactory at the moment. It means that London is doing quite well.
Coming to the National Theatre proper, we had to find means of bringing the cost down to within what we could reasonably hope to get from County Hall and from Whitehall. The agreement is that both will supply £3¾ million.
We have had to make sacrifices to keep within that figure. To begin with, there will not be a restaurant, but there will be space made available for one. Again, a small experimental theatre has to be sacrificed. But in the main, we look forward to a splendid theatre.
Twenty years ago, it was the building which was being discussed, but, even with all our love and respect for the Old Vic, we did not have a great National Theatre Company of the distinction that we have today.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The right hon. Lady said that the experimental theatre is being dispensed with, but there are two theatres, are there not?

Miss Lee: I will come to that in a moment. Mr. Denys Lasdun originally planned for three. I will define that more clearly later.
We have had a distinguished National Theatre Company for five years, and at this point in my remarks I want to pay tribute to Sir Laurence Olivier. I received a very moving letter from him the other day. It was an S.O.S. for the setting up of a temporary theatre where a Young Vic company could operate. He pointed out that the great stars come and go, but that the essence of a national theatre is the ensemble. He went on to say that he dared not expose his young company straightaway to the full glare of the National Theatre stage. I am sure that we all appreciate not only his personal distinction but his sense of continuity and, above all, his emphasis on the fact that, however important the great


stars are, it is the quality of the ensemble and the opportunities that its members are given which is the very heart and core of a national theatre.
I doubt whether anyone in the Comittee needs to be persuaded that the Old Vic Theatre is not adequate for present needs. I should like to put on record, because there may be some who wonder whether this is an undue extravagance at such a time, that the Old Vic was not designed for the presentation of full-scale repertory of the high standard expected of a National Theatre Company. It lacks the necessary technical amenities. There is an inadequate lighting system and switchboard, insufficient wing space on stage, insufficient rehearsal rooms, and storage space for only two or three productions. Dressing room conditions are primitive and inadequate for the number of the company required to play both in London, the regions and abroad. From a number of the seats in the theatre it is impossible to see the stage properly. The public cloakrooms, bars and foyer space are both cramped and uncomfortable. Finally, the number of seats, even allowing for those where the vision is inadequate, is not much more than 800. This, of course, leads to a great deal of complaint from the public, especially if there is a performance which they particularly wish to attend.
On the other hand, what are we preparing today? We are making our contribution to the building of a new National Theatre which will have two auditoria, one of the proscenium type seating 900 people and one of the open stage type seating 1,165 people. That means that the total seating capacity of the theatre will, therefore, be over 2,000. The National Theatre Company considers the two auditoria are strictly necessary in order to present plays of wide variety which a National Theatre must include within its repertoire within the type of auditorium most suited to those plays. It can be said that the more intimate type of production will be staged in the proscenium auditorium and the more spectacular production within the open stage type auditorium.
Equally important, backstage facilities including dressing rooms, production department, wardrobe department, rehearsal rooms, etc., will be to the

highest modern standards, while the facilities available to the public will be of the type which they have the right to expect in a capital city which is a major centre of the arts.
I have already indicated the relative contributions of the Government and the Greater London Council, but, in addition, there is a sum of about £100,000 remaining from the Shakespeare Memorial Trust. As I have said before, with this amount of financial backing, and, I hope, moral and every other kind of backing as well, we are confident that we can have a very great theatre worthy of London, worthy of the whole of Great Britain, and occupying a leading place throughout the world.
I will conclude almost at once, because I do not think that the Bill will be hotly contested between the two sides of the Committee, but I would just say that in 1949 there was a cri de coeur that we could not, in the then financial situation, go ahead with this kind of plan. There will be those who ask now whether we have our priorities right, whether this is not one form of expenditure which could very well be put back to some future date. I hope that we will not take that view. I hold that a country which cannot find a place in its thoughts and in its provisions for the highest form of the arts, a country which loses that inspiration and that solace, has no real claim to be called great. There has never been a time in history, in any part of the world, where the great arts have been able to flourish unsubsidised. In a mixed economy we still hope to get private money, trusts and the rest, but I think that we would all agree that it has now become urgent, and, I hope, one of the most pleasant duties of Government, to see that we honour our great country by ensuring all the encouragement that this theatre will give, not just in London, but in Scotland. Wales and throughout the country. This is our privilege and our pleasure this morning. We are now ready to move forward into the final stage of creating a new building in which London and the whole country can take pride. I commend the Bill to the Committee.

10.51 a.m.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: I join with the right hon. Lady in commending the Bill to the Committee. Like her, I would have been a


great deal happier this morning if all that she and I and others wish to say had not been said already some 20 years ago. I suppose in a way that the Committee of Selection ought to be congratulated, because there are many Members of the House who took part in that debate, but none has been selected to serve on this Committee. I imagine that it would have been too much to have made them go through it again 20 years later when their previous efforts have not, alas, so far been successful.
I agree that the first resolution that the Committee should set itself is to be absolutely certain that we will get a National Theatre and not be sitting here in another 20 years still talking about the problem, by which time the cost will have gone up to £10 million if costs escalate at the same rate as they have in the last 20 years.
I do not intend to go through the history of the National Theatre. It is a very long history. But I think that the Committee would like to pay tribute to all the people who, for so many years, have fought against sometimes overwhelming odds to get this project successfully completed. I was glad that the right hon. Lady used those kind words about my noble Friend, Lord Chandos, who has been connected with the project for so many years and who will be a very happy man when it is completed. He told me that he had been connected with the project for 40 years and was determined that it would not be another 40 years before he went to the first performance.
The right hon. Lady quoted from the 1949 debate. I should like to quote a passage from the speech of Mr. Oliver Lyttelton, as he then was, because I think that he set the case best for a National Theatre. Indeed, it was appropriate that he should do so. He said:
I have often been asked, as a sponsor of this project, what is the necessity for a National Theatre? This, of course, is a question which perhaps only the Secretary of the Philistine Society, if there is such a body, could approprately ask. I usually reply in a rather conventional way by asking what is the need, come to that, for the National Gallery, for St. Paul's Cathedral, 'Lycidas' or the 'Eroica' Symphony of Beethoven. These works are not necessities in the sense that the President of the Board of Trade and others use the term when speaking about

clothes, food or houses. In fact, we only begin to enter the realms of art when we begin to leave the realms of necessity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1949; Vol. 460, c 446.]
I strongly support the plan for a National Theatre, which is long overdue here. The French have had a national theatre for 300 years, and most civilised countries have a record over centuries and considerably greater than ours of supporting their theatres and opera. It is particularly appropriate that we should have a National Theatre because, in the arts, drama has been the great British contribution. The works of innumerable playwrights spring immediately to mind in considering a National Theatre-Shakespeare, Marlowe, Shaw. However, it is interesting that Mr. Shaw was not keen on a National Theatre, at least on the proposed site that we have now suggested. Nor was J. B. Priestley, for that matter. I do not know why it is always these Left Wing playwrights who are against the idea. Everyone else seems to be in favour.

Miss Lee: It was the site to which J. B. Priestley objected, not the theatre.

Mr. Channon: It was the site to which Shaw objected; but J. B. Priestley was against the whole idea.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: George Bernard Shaw was happy with Malvern. I am the Chairman of that theatre.

Mr. Channon: I am sure that he had every reason to be.
At the time that this matter was debated in 1949 there was criticism in distinguished quarters against the idea of a National Theatre. Many people thought it was unnecessary. I think that that thought has now gone completely, and that the National Theatre is welcomed enthusiastically by all in this country who love drama. Perhaps the real reason, as the right hon. Lady said, is the magnificent work done by Sir Laurence Olivier and the National Theatre Company in their difficult conditions during the past five years. I hope that all hon. Members have had an opportunity of seeing some of the performers of the National Theatre Company. The only trouble seems to be that it is almost impossible to get in. However, that is probably a good thing. I have some doubts whether it will be


easier to get into the new National Theatre. This is a fault of success, about which we cannot complain.
It is also a matter for congratulation and happiness that both sides of the Committee can join enthusiastically in supporting the project. Indeed, at different times both major parties have given the National Theatre support when they could. The Government, despite economic difficulties at the moment, are supporting the National Theatre. In 1962. when we also had economic difficulties, though nothing like so severe as those we have been through recently, support was given by the Conservative Government to the National Theatre. It has been an interesting example of co-operation between the Government and the London County Council, and now the G.L.C. In 1949 we had a Labour L.C.C. and a Labour Government. Then we had a Labour L.C.C. and a Tory Government. Now we have this new partnership between the Tory Greater London Council and a Labour Government. My guess is that when the National Theatre is completed the fourth permutation will be the one which will shortly rule our affairs.

Miss Lee: No politics, please.

Mr. Channon: Should that turn out to be the case, I am sure that the National Theatre will have nothing to fear.
I am grateful to the Greater London Council and to the Government for the £3¾ million which they are both to provide for this project. It is understandable that neither side wishes to go further—indeed, they are not committed to anything further—if the Theatre cannot be built for the £7·6 million—because there is the extra £100,000 which has been promised. This goes to show, and it cannot be emphasised too strongly, that the sooner we can get on with the project the more chance there will be of its being completed. If we cannot do it fairly speedily, costs will rise and it will not be possible to build it within the figure of £7·6 million. I would hope and think that that large sum of money is sufficient.
Perhaps the right hon. Lady could tell us what is now the proposed timing of this project? Will it take from now, 12th February 1969, to 1973 or 1974 before

the National Theatre is built? There is every incentive to hurry as fast as possible with the project if we are to get it at all. We cannot afford the risk of building costs escalating again so severely. I think it is a project with which any contractor would be proud to be associated, and there will be an enormous incentive to build it speedily and on time. I very much hope, therefore, that we may have some information about the likely timing of the project.
I expect that most hon. Members have had an opportunity of seeing the distinguished plans which Mr. Lasdun has drawn up. I am sure that Sir Laurence Olivier and all those connected with the project were right to insist that the National Theatre, if it was to be built, should be built to the highest standards. It is dangerous for a layman to express views on the architectural merit of the theatre or on the proposed layout inside as prepared by experts, but I think that it is an exciting building and it seems to have met with general approval.
What criticisms could be levelled against the idea for a National Theatre? Why have a National Theatre at all? I think that few people ask that now. Most people interested in the project think that the criticism really is that we have not had a National Theatre in the past.
I should like to put forward an economic argument, too, which was not touched on by the right hon. Lady. The theatre today provides an enormous asset to our invisible exports. We have an enormous number of tourists attracted to London. I think that the theatre is one reason why they come. If an American tourist is asked why he is here, he invariably says that one reason is to visit the theatre. This is the reason why people go to New York also. I hope that the National Theatre will be an additional reason why people will come to London. This will, of course, mean that it will be even more difficult than it is now to get tickets. Very often our actors and playwrights do not get the credit which they deserve for the earnings which they bring to this country. They do not get credit for their distinguished record in the theatre, not only in this country, but on Broadway, and in all parts of the world. I think that in the long term the National Theatre will prove to be of increasing benefit to our balance of payments.
There are those who ask why the National Theatre should be in London. It is inevitable that it should be in the great capital city of this country. I suppose it is inevitable that Londoners will get more of the benefits than others will, but they are putting up half the cost, and they are entitled to some extra benefit for that.
I hope that when the new Theatre is built the company will seriously consider doing what it can to help the regions. We all know what a tremendous problem the theatre is facing outside London. I hope that the National Theatre will stimulate people into going to the theatre in general. This may be the greatest service it can perform. I know that at the moment the National Theatre Company tours the regions for a minimum of eight weeks every year, and sometimes more than that. I hope that, without imposing too much of a strain on the Company, it will be possible to increase this minimum of eight weeks to, say, twelve weeks, or whatever is considered appropriate, so that the regions may feel that they are getting their share of the money which the country is putting up towards the cost of this Theatre.
I do not consider that the National Theatre will have a bad effect on the commercial theatre. I shall be interested to hear the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) who knows so much about this problem. I hope that it will encourage new audiences to the theatre, and create more interest in it, both outside London and within it.
There may be some people who, in general terms, are in favour of having a National Theatre, but say that the present appalling economic climate is not the moment for it. There will never be a right moment to go ahead with a theatre. There will never be a time when everyone says, "This is the moment when we should press ahead". There will always be some reason why it is an inconvenient moment. There has been very little critiism, either in the House or outside, along those lines.
Considerable long-term economic benefits can be gained from the National Theatre, but perhaps the right hon. Lady will confirm some details about the short-term expenditure. I imagine that there will be comparatively little expenditure

this year, and perhaps not very much next year, either, and that the bulk of the expenditure will be in 1971 or 1972. Surely by then we can expect some improvement in the economic climate? If there is not, it will be a disaster.
I was a little depressed when I read the report of the Press conference which the National Theatre gave in 1967. Sir Laurence Olivier said then:
The Prime Minister has promised us a boom in about a year—just the right time to start building.
I am afraid that his forecast was out.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: It was not Sir Laurence's forecast.

Mr. Channon: We all know that life is full of disappointments. It is not necessary to remind my hon. Friend of the words of King Lear:
Get thee glass eyes;
And, like a scurvy politician, seem
To see the things thou dost not.
That was what the Prime Minister was doing in that forecast. We all hope that when the bulk of the expenditure for this theatre comes to be made the economic climate will be more favourable.
I think that this great project deserves the enthusiastic support of the Committee and the whole House. I think that it deserves the enthusiastic support of those interested in promoting the theatre. I hope that it will be able to go forward with speed and vigour, and that the National Theatre will be built in the comparatively near future. If it is, it will be an achievement for both sides of the House, and they can take credit for it, because it will be a project which will grow and to which all people can look forward.

11.5 a.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: If I may also quote from our national playwright, I do not wish either to paint the lily or to perfume the violet, but I should like to join in the congratulations which have been given by the right hon. Lady and by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) to those who have played a part in bringing this project to fruition. I congratulate, too, both the right hon. Lady and my hon. Friend on the civilising influence, if that is the right word, which they have exercised in the House.


I do not know whether that civilising influence is necessary among our colleagues, but they certainly have exercised it, and this is an encouraging day, for them in particular, and for those who are interested in the theatre.
It is true that the theatre is the one field in which we are pre-eminent. We have an unbroken tradition of English drama, which goes back to the medieval morality and mystery plays, and is carried on not only on this side of the Atlantic, but on the other, where there is a flourishing, vigorous tradition. In the past the flow of talent and inventiveness has not needed a National Theatre. For better or for worse, the age of Royal and private patronage of the theatre is over, but we are in the age of State patronage of the arts, and that being so it is right that the theatre should have its legitimate share.
I have one reservation about the Bill, and that is whether the sum of £7½ million will be enough. It sounds a large sum, half of which will come from the G.L.C., and half from the Treasury, but costs are bound to rise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West said, most of the building is likely to take place, not in the next year or two, but at the end of four years, and by then costs will have increased considerably. By an extremely ingenious effort the architect has managed to reduce the projected cost from £7½ million to £7·4 million, without interfering with the facilities—in fact he has improved them in some ways—but that leaves only £100,000 to play with. I wonder what will happen by 1972 or 1973. Will the money which we are voting now be sufficient?

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I should like to advise my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who is a good friend, not to encourage the people who will carry out this project to ask for supplementaries. They will come. Supplementary grants will be asked for. I do not think that we should encourage people to ask for them.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I take the point. but my point is not contradictory to that. My hon. Friend and I never disagree on any important matter. My point is that to avoid the need for supplementary estimates we should consider whether, to

get it past the Treasury and the House, this figure is being fixed rather low. We should consider whether it is being fixed at that low figure to avoid opposition now. This is a legitimate political device, but in the long run it may prove to be more costly, in more ways than one.
My second question is, what is going to happen to the Old Vic when this Theatre is built? What plans are there for that? One suggestion which I have seen, and which I support, is that the present National Theatre should be used for putting on plays at low prices, particularly for the young. I suggest to the right hon. Lady that it should be used also in conjunction with what used to be called the University of the Air, a project which I wish well, and regret that my party voted against, or indicated its displeasure about, or its opposition to.

Mr. Channon: The criticism of the University of the Air was the choice of priorities, when there were so many other pressing needs. There was no violent opposition to the project itself.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I did not say that there was violent opposition to the project. My very measured words seem to have produced a violent response from my hon. Friend. I regret that that was the order of priority. I should give it a higher priority, but I suggest that the Old Vic might in future be used in association with programmes there.
It is true, also, that this is a National Theatre; it is not a London theatre, even though it is based in London. The right hon. Lady mentioned the importance of regarding this as a theatre based on the nation as a whole. I agree with that, because I imagine that one hopes to develop at the National Theatre—indeed, to a certain extent it has been developed already—a troupe of actors similar to the troupe which exists at certain continental centres, such as at the Comédie Francaise in Paris, or the Berlin Ensemble or the Moscow Arts Theatre. If we are to create that sort of company, we must get people from the provinces as well as from London. It is, therefore, important that the provincial theatre should flourish at the same time.
I see that the right hon. Lady agrees with me. I hope that she will help the Chelmsford Theatre in particular, which at the moment is in need of money.
My final point concerns a rather delicate subject, but I think I must make it. It is that if Parliament grants this large sum of money to the National Theatre those who dispense this money for building the theatre, and those who use the theatre for putting on plays, must have some sense of responsibility to the nation as to what they put on in that theatre. I am not in favour of any form of censorship of the theatre. Indeed, I was one of the sponsors of the Bill, along with the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), to abolish the theatrical jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain. If the National Theatre is to command the support and confidence of the nation, there must he certain restraints, and Parliament is entitled to ask for certain assurances of restraint from those responsible for the administration of the National Theatre.
I have in mind the recent proposal to put on at the National Theatre the play "Soldiers", by Hochhuth. That play would have been put on had it not been for the intervention of the noble Lord Lord Chandos who quite properly intervened, exercising his function as Chairman of the Board. I should like to pay a tribute to the noble Lord for his far-sighted action in that matter. I have seen the play. It is a very bad play, but that is not the point. My suggestion is that it is unacceptable at a national institution like the National Theatre to put on a play which insults one of the greatest Englishmen, when his widow and relatives are still alive. This was a gross error of judgment and taste. The Prime Minister himself commented on it only yesterday when he described the play as "scurrilous".
When Parliament is giving these large sums it is entitled to ask that this theatre will not put on plays which insult revered individuals and institutions in this country, such as the Monarchy. Such plays should not be put on at the taxpayers' expense.

Mr. Anthony Royle: I agree with my hon. Friend about the play by Hochhuth at the National Theatre, but is he not putting forward a dangerous proposition? Who in future is to decide what is restrained and what is not? I fully accept that the decision of Lord Chandos was right

and sensible, but is my hon. Friend saying that, in future, Parliament must dictate to those who run the theatre what they should and should not put on? This would be totally unacceptable to me. It is a very dangerous philosophy that Parliament should in any way censor the productions of the National Theatre.

The Chairman: Order. I have no objection to interventions but hon. Members must keep them rather shorter than that.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, but whether it be a dangerous philosophy or not is not for me to say, because it is not my philosophy that Parliament should control the day-to-day running of the theatre. I was saying that, unless there were a high standard of responsibility, Parliament would have to intervene, which I would regret. But that is different from my hon. Friend's point.
There must be freedom in the theatre, as throughout the arts, but not without a sense of responsibility. No free institution—that includes Parliament—can flourish without some self-discipline. The wider the freedom, the greater the need for that discipline. When censorship of the theatre has been to all intents and purposes abolished there is a need for a responsible censorship in the theatre as a whole and in the National Theatre in particular. We cannot legislate for good taste: it is difficult to acquire by experience; some are lucky enough to be born with it, and others unfortunate enough to lack it. This is a substantial point which should be made when these large sums of money are being given to an important institution.

Mr. Ben Whitaker: When the hon. Gentleman said that, for some reason, the Monarchy must be exempted from critical plays, would he have applied this if he had been living at that time to half the historical plays of Shakespeare, for relatives were living of some of the people whom Shakespeare criticised in his plays? Which should have priority—restraint or artistic plays?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I would reply, Autres temps, autres moeurs. The Elizabethan monarchy was regarded differently from the Monarchy today. The historical background was different. Kings and queens were executed in those


days fairly regularly. We must take into account public feeling on certain matters and not outrage it in a National Theatre.
I am sorry to have injected a note of controversy into these proceedings, so I want to end on a more harmonious note. The achievements of the Director of the National Theatre and those responsible for the direction have been considerable. There has been a wide range of plays, ranging from "A Flea in Her Ear", to "The Dance of Death", beautifully produced and worthy of our national theatrical tradition. The future of the National Theatre, although bright with promise, rests in its own hands, as is true of all free institutions.

11.21 a.m.

Mr. Ben Whitaker: Although I generally agree with the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) I would strongly dissent from his attempt to put any strictures on the plays which are produced at the National Theatre. It is ludicrous for Members of Parliament to try to arbitrate in artistic matters. There are perfectly good legal provisions governing any defamation, and, as someone who generally agrees with my honourable constituent, I regret that he should contend that there should be any less artistic freedom in the twentieth century than there was in Shakespeare's day. If we were to have a worse state of affairs than that in Elizabethan England, that would not be the right climate in which to launch a National Theatre.
I support what my right hon. Friend said, that there should be complete freedom from political control. When the hon. Member for Chelmsford tried to dress up his penchant for censorship as matters of good taste, he must realise better than anyone that what is good taste to him is poison to many other hon. Members. It is not good enough to say that this is a question of self-imposed censorship, because these are his own particular prejudices.
Many of us would like to pay a short but strong tribute to my right hon. Friend for her strong efforts on behalf not only of the National Theatre but of the arts generally. We are all conscious of the ludicrous situation that the foundation

stone of this theatre has been sitting in solitary state a few yards from where we are now. It is a deplorable saga, equalled only by the state of the Burrell picture collection in Glasgow, which has been neglected year after year equally indefensibly.
I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will give us a target date for the first performance. When is the estimated "curtain up"? She might be well advised to include a strong penalty clause in the contract for the building of the theatre and an incentive bonus for prompt completion, so that there will be every reason for the winner of the contract to stick to the date.
Many hon. Members would regret it if there were any penny pinching. If we are to have a National Theatre for Great Britain, let it be something we are proud of. It would be lamentable if there were no restaurant, as is proposed, and if there were not adequate car parking facilities or adequate facilities both for the players and for the staff behind the scenes, who are often neglected in British theatres because the public do not see the terrible conditions in which they work.
Therefore, could she launch a public subscription? If the Treasury and the Greater London Council have refused to pay a penny more, why should not enlightened contributions come from industry or from trusts and foundations, so that this really is a national theatre of which we can be proud. Many private companies disburse funds to political parties. Might they not contribute to something more estimable, such as a non-party national theatre? A public subscription list might be a very good form of advertising for companies, and some of us might be persuaded to patronise those which spend money in such an enlightened direction, rather than in much less enlightened directions. I hope that this project will go forward as soon as possible.

11.26 a.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I believe in the continuity of debate so should like to comment on the pebble thrown into the pond by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). Of course Parliament would always be able to bring back censorship if that were thought right. It was


Parliament which gave the Lord Chamberlain the power in the first place and Parliament which took it away—I think rightly. If those responsible do not attain a level which is just, sensible and clean, Parliament would have to step in. If the self-discipline which my hon. Friend describes is not forthcoming, this might have to happen. I hope that it will not, but the theatre might get into the hands of cranks. Those with the power should remember that at this stage all of us interested in this form of art do not want the censor and hope that he is finished for good, but that is not to say that we have net the power to bring him back, if we thought fit.
The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) suggested, more in his tone than this words, that industry and the trusts were not contributing to the arts. They are very generous. If they were persuaded to divert considerable funds to the National Theatre other institutions might suffer. There are theatres throughout the country which are always making appeals. They get a very generous response, considering the economic situation. Although I am wholeheartedly in favour of this power under the Bill, I hope that this glamorous National Theatre, with all the headlines it gets, will not attract all the money from those sources, to leave other institutions, in the provinces, to drop out of existence because they are denied their source of funds. The right hon. Lady will have more information on this than I, but it is known that industry and the trusts which it has set up have been generous patrons of the arts. We put out an appeal to them from the Malvern Theatre recently. They have not much money for that today, but we hope that their past generosity will show itself again.
One thing is clear from the speeches this morning—that we want this National Theatre quickly, not just because it is a good thing in itself but also because, if we delay, we shall not be able to afford it. Time is of the essence. I do not entirely follow the theme of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford. We should tell the people who have to give effect to the idea of the Bill that they must keep within the limits laid down and the budgets explained to us by the right hon. Lady. This may mean doing with

out restaurants and other facilities for the time being, but it should not be beyond the capacity of a good architect so to plan that when happier times come we can have the full bloom that we want.
Talk of such figures as have been mentioned this morning might frighten people. Members of this Committee are enthusiastic and well advised to be so, but people outside have not the same sympathies because they have not the same understanding of these needs. It would not be sensible to frighten them off by suggesting that the figures should be higher, though no doubt, supplementary estimates will come for items which cannot be foreseen at the moment. The message should be that we want this theatre, we have seen the plans, we believe an excellent edifice can be produced within the figure proposed, and we want the architect to keep within it.
I emphasise the need to pay attention to the National Theatre helping the provinces. At the moment there are in the country between 20 and 30 well-known theatres on the verge of dropping out of existence. If in the next two or three years they do not receive help of some sort we may be short of theatres by that number. I cannot see the force of building an excellent National Theatre in London if it is at the price of 30 other theatres dropping out of existence. The right hon. Lady has shown excellent interest in this matter and she has fire m her belly for the job she is doing. I hope that she will turn her attention to keeping provincial theatres alive. She has encouraged the setting up of a committee of the Arts Council to look into this matter. An interim report has been produced with a view to giving first aid to theatres which may be on the verge of going out of existence. This matter is so urgent that we ought to have a quick reply. Otherwise we shall be paying lip service to this culture only to see it withering away.
The National Theatre can help very much. It does a minimum of eight weeks touring, but rarely exceeds that limit. There are ways and means of letting those responsible know what our views are. If it could be written into the policy of the National Theatre that it must tour the provinces for a minimum of, say, 14 weeks a year, that would be worth doing. Perhaps the running costs would


then be more. The Royal Ballet has "shown that, when trying to do more touring.
However, if it would cost more money it might be worth anticipating the extra running costs in return for spreading the National Theatre's influence in the provinces. If provincial theatres believed that they were within two or three years of receiving such help from the National Theatre it would be an added incentive to their tightening their belts in order to keep alive. If not, this country, which contributes more than any other to this kind of art, may find its influence on world theatre fade.
My answer to the Philistines—of whom there is none present here—is that there is an economic side to this kind of project. The balance of payments of this country through foreign earnings 20 years from now will receive more from the arts, the theatre, television and all the things we call entertainment, than will be received from the sale of motor cars. Other countries are already making motor cars and that market will recede. Only a tiny part of the world has television and theatres and such things which we take for granted. We have the facilities, the know-how and experience by which this country could become to the theatre what Hollywood has become for films. There is a hard economic advantage in having a theatre which is the last word in excellence, which can provide the highest quality performances, and maintain and further establish our lead over America and other countries as the people who can supply the know-how and earn the income.
There are good cultural and social reasons and, I believe, outstanding economic reasons to be enthusiastic about sending this Bill forward with the provision suggested by the right hon. Lady. The benefits I have envisaged, and the vision I have of what could flow from it, depend on our being able to maintain our national interest in the subject. They depend on provincial theatres being maintained. They are old, draughty, out-of-date buildings, not of the best sort, but they have to be kept in use till they can be replaced by new buildings which, I hope, will be financed to some extent by private enterprise. If we allow them to fail we shall not succeed in our object,

but, if we can get this National Theatre, and at the same time maintain and encourage provincial theatres, we shall do a good job.
Because we can together do that I am happy to be on this Committee and to give the right hon. Lady all the support I am able to give.

11.39 a.m.

Mrs. Renée Short: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend upon getting us here today discussing this Bill. This is a most exciting occasion. If one looks at the projected plans both for the National Theatre and the rebuilding of Covent Garden in due course with the provision of a permanent home for Sadlers Wells and perhaps a London Arts Centre under one roof, one sees that we are on the verge of exciting and stimulating developments affecting not only drama but ballet and the training of dancers, actors and actresses.
The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) struck the right note and I wish to follow what he said. We look at the developments for which we have been working for many years, but we see that the state of the theatre is very parlous. The concern which the hon. Member expressed for the lack of health in many of the commercial theatres is well known. I am concerned about the way in which many provincial repertory theatres of the very highest standing, and which are supported by the Arts Council, have to operate on a shoestring. As my right hon. Friend knows I have great personal interest in this. I investigated the Arts Council expenditure last year and had the opportunity of seeing many theatres in England. Scotland and Wales. The idea that the new National Theatre will help to bring some fertilisation and cross-pollination to the provincial theatre is very desirable, but the National Theatre cannot do this unless we provide decent theatres of the right size with the right amenities. These we have not got at present.
I could not follow the hon. Member's suggestion that it should be written into the future contract of the National Theatre that it should tour for 14 weeks. We cannot dictate how much it should tour or where it should tour. Touring is a highly expensive operation, and to be successful it depends on having the


right theatres. It may be that the new National Theatre, with a much larger stage and better facilities than it has now, will do much more ambitious productions with more ambitious staging which could not be adapted to the tiny stages of many provincial theatres. We have to be wary about this suggestion. Neither in touring nor in what should be put on should we attempt to dictate to the National Theatre. This should be left to its good sense and sense of responsibility.
One of the reasons why I welcome the new development is that with the proposals for two theatres under one roof, as it were, and developments for a young people's theatre, which Sir Laurence and Frank Dunlop have very much at heart, there will be more employment for young actors and actresses in this overcrowded profession. They are highly talented people who have been trained in the best schools in the world—the training is superb—but many theatres are closing. Not only are theatres closing, but those which remain are run on a shoestring. Often they can afford to employ only the tinest nucleus of a company. In many theatres supported by the State there is a nucleus of only 10, which is nonsense if we want to support good drama. This is entirely a matter of money.
So, if it provides opportunities to extend employment in the theatrical profession, we should all welcome this proposal. More than half of well-trained actors and actresses—not those who have muscled in by the back door—often do not get employment for a year. That is an indictment of our present care and concern for the arts and the theatre generally. Although I do not want to pour cold water on our happy proceedings, I think we should bear in mind that, while we are looking forward to producing a magnificent workshop for the National Theatre, we must not overlook the provincial theatre's needs, which are very urgent and moving into a state of crisis.
On my visits to the National Theatre I saw enthusiastic, dedicated people who are doing marvellous work, but their conditions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) said, are quite appalling. It is amazing that the present high standard has been maintained for so long under such bad conditions. I am referring not only to mem-

bers of the company, but to those who have to produce the costumes and sets, to paint the scenery and provide the props. They are working under bad conditions of cramped space. A National Theatre should not have to work under those conditions.
I hope that somehow, either by the ideas suggested by my hon. Friend or otherwise, we may persuade those who have not contributed to the development of the arts as they ought to make an adequate contribution. He has suggested a public appeal. However, I wonder if we could make an approach to the Independent Television authorities who, in my opinion, have a very strong moral responsibility. I do not want to discuss their enormous profits but, rather, to what use they put them. Perhaps they could be persuaded to invest some of their profits in the live theatre.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Lady will recall that we wrote a provision into the last Television Act that they should contribute to some sort of fund which, I thought, was to be used for this very purpose.

Mrs. Short: I was not aware that we had written in such a provision. However, the moral obligation is clear. Television tends to use only experienced actors and actresses. To get them, it looks round the provincial repertory theatres and decides which of the actors and actresses are of sufficient experience and talent to use. It creams off young actors who have been trained in the provincial theatres and who have gained their experience through the opportunities given by the investment of public money via the Arts Council. I feel that there is a strong case for suggesting that the television authorities have a responsibility to put something back into the living theatre.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give us some information about the timing of the development of the Theatre. Like all other hon. Members, I look forward to being able to attend the opening night.

11.48 a.m.

Sir Clive Bossom: The right hon. Lady spoke about the debate in the House 20 years ago. My father was an Alderman of the L.C.C., an hon.


Member of this House and, above all, an architect, and I remember how, 35 years ago, he had some very exciting ideas about the layout and design of a National Theatre. Today, nothing must stand in the way of getting the project launched. I am sure that hon. Members want to see the theatre completed. The date aimed at is early 1973. I hope that that will be achieved.
Last summer, I made an extensive tour of the Lincoln Centre in New York. I wanted to discover some of the pitfalls and snags which had been encountered there and what lessons could be learned from what has taken place there in the last few years. It is a wonderful site. The layout is impressive. There is an opera house at one end, a huge concert hall on one side, a theatre for musicals on another, an exciting small theatre with a magnificent stage, and a huge workshop behind it, and, above all, a small museum with an excellent reference library. I felt very much at home, because there was a tremendous piece of sculpture by Henry Moore out in the open.
Having studied these theatres and auditoriums, I think that there are four lessons which we can study. The first concerns finance, which is always a danger. The Lincoln Centre already is running into major financial difficulties, although there are "House Full" notices up every night. Our own National Theatre already lives in the shadow of the balance sheet, and although Parliament has been very generous—and long may this continue—I see difficulties ahead. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) suggested other ways of raising money, such as public appeals for subscriptions, and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) spoke about the possibility of the television authorities helping. However, I think that Australia had the right idea, and surmounted a similar problem in a painless way: £20 million was raised to finance the Sydney Opera House by running a national lottery. I want the National Theatre to feel secure from the start. At the moment, it is getting the money, but we must guarantee that it can continue with complete security.
The next two lessons which I learned are minor but important ones. We must construct adequate car parking space and

get-away facilities. In New York, after evening performances, conditions are extremely bad when the weather is cold and wet. People are marooned at the Centre and cannot get away. We must plan adequately for car parking and provide first-class public transport facilities so that people are not stranded on the South Bank.
The third lesson relates to seats. A person going to the theatre wants to relax and enjoy the production. He does not want to sit tense and cramped. In America, there is never enough knee room. Do not let us skimp on our seats and upholstery. It would appear that some of our modern theatres employ dwarfs to design their seats. Some of them are very uncomfortable.
The main lesson which I learned was that it is much more important than having restaurants to have a small museum, a reference library and a tiny cinema. The standard of English drama is the highest in the world, and actors and students come to England to study. There is a need for a small reference library on the spot, so that everyone can know where to find authentic information about the English theatre. Before Mr. Denys Lasdun finalises his plan I hope that a museum, a reference library and a small cinema will be included. I am not suggesting any addition to the financial provision to be made, because, if necessary, they can be built afterwards. If they are not included in the plans, we shall again miss a unique opportunity.
British genius has expressed itself supremely in engineering, seafaring, literature. South Kensington, Greenwich, Bloomsbury have splendid museums which contain all that is needed for research. No major museum exists for English drama and theatrical history. There is the British Theatre Museum at Leighton House in Holland Park Road, Kensington, where there are 40 major collections. However only a few can be displayed, only the tip of the iceberg is on show. Most of them have to be stowed away. It was opened in 1963, and it is a most progressive little gallery, but it is not big enough. Then there are splendid collections of theatrical material in the London Museum, and the Enthoven Collection in the Victoria and Albert. The Garrick Club, too, has a splendid collection of


what I might call "theatricalia"—if such a word exists. But there is no national museum under one roof. We shall miss a unique opportunity unless it is taken now.
If we have a national theatrical museum it must include a reference library with collections of programmes, playbills and prompt scripts. A copy of each new play should be sent there and kept under one roof. Today, all good museums should be divided into two parts, the larger section being devoted to permanent and special exhibitions, the smaller section being reserved for students and researchers. A mini-cinema should also be included, because that is most important for the showing of filmed records and actual theatrical productions. Filming is expensive today, but it could be done with television cameras which need less light and use electronic tapes which are easy to store. The aim is to film a factually accurate record of a given production to show how it was acted, how it was produced and the way that it looked. We live in an age of documentation, and future generations will not thank us if we allow theatrical history to slip through our fingers. Several small organisations are doing it, but there is no one central body.
To summarise, the four lessons which I learnt from the Lincoln Centre are first the financial one. Why not have a national lottery? The second is the provision of car parking and get-away facilities. Third, do let us provide comfortable seats and adequate knee room. Fourth, let us ensure that there is a small museum with a reference library and a minute cinema attached to it. It is still not too late, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will give some thought to these points and try to provide for them in the plans.

11.56 a.m.

Mr. Christopher Price: I want to add my voice to the warnings sounded by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) against the words of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who said that, in some way, Parliament should make it clear that, unless certain standards are adhered to, it might have to interfere in the future. Several hon. Members have alluded to Shakespeare. I would remind the hon. Gentleman

of Aristophanes. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman knows about Aristophanes—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do.

Mr. Price: —but, if he wants more information, one of the happier pursuits of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) is to be something of an expert on the subject. Greek democracy was the most vibrant democracy ever. It positively thrived on total criticism of living politicians. That very fact was one of the great bastions of strength of that democracy. I hope that Parliament will lay down no lines for the National Theatre, but will trust those in charge of it to judge plays purely on their quality as drama, rather than adopting other criteria.
A fear which I have is that, before very long, this theatre will appear very inflexible and out of date. I am sorry that the third experimental theatre has disappeared. In my view, the proscenium arch has a limited life in this country. Quite the most exciting developments since the war have come from Joan Littlewood and the Theatre Workshop, heavily influenced by Brecht in Berlin. These ideas have infiltrated into the rest of our theatre, and over the next 20 or 30 years I expect to see many more productions like that of the Hochhuth play about the late Sir Winston Churchill. We shall see more theatre of fact—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: There is not much fact about that play.

Mr. Price: —and much less traditional melodrama and other types of theatre. In addition, there will be many more attempts to establish theatres as flexible units, such as "theatre in the round". That is why I am sorry that the second theatre is what I might call an orthodox proscenium arch theatre. If we are building this theatre for the next 50, 100 or 200 years, we have to recognise that the theatre is changing from an aristocratic concept into a democratic concept. This may or may not happen, but we can plan for this by planning for flexibility.
I hope very much that, in the final plans, at least as much thought as is given to the kind of plays that people will probably want to put on in this theatre in the next five years, is given to


the developments which might be taking place in the next 25 or 30 years. The Tate Gallery is a good example of what I have in mind. It was designed with prestige and contemporary objects in mind, but 100 years later the building is totally inflexible for the purposes for which we want to use it. That is why we have this expense in trying to mould the Tate into the kind of building we want. I hope that these lessons are not lost on those who design the National Theatre.

12.2 p.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I do not want to take more than a few moments, but I was stung into speaking by a phrase used by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker). Glasgow may seem very far away to those here supporting the project this morning, but this is a very real problem. I wholeheartedly support this project because it will provide the core for this country's great tradition in drama. We who come from 700 miles away support the project with as great enthusiasm as the majority of hon. Members who live in London.
No one has fought longer or more fiercely than I have to have the Burrell Collection displayed. The reason why it is not displayed is that there has not been the cash to provide a gallery for it. So that great collection will have to take its turn in the priorities, although I have long thought that its priority rated very high indeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) said that we must consider amateur drama which supports the smaller theatres, and which is seeking money at the moment. I am tempted to remind the Committee, Mr. Robertson, that your own Paisley Grammarians have been chosen as the team to represent Great Britain for the Community Drama in Monte Carlo in September, yet it lacks £500 to get there. This is the kind of thing that inevitably brings criticism vis-à-vis our voting £3¾ million to the National Theatre project today. One of the most encouraging and exciting developments in the arts in Scotland is Scottish Opera, which was born of the enthusiasm of one man, whose passion for opera started at school and has taken

him throughout Europe in command of the Scottish Opera. We should be clear that there are competing claims.
I am glad that there are two theatres in this project. I believe that the smaller theatre will provide opportunity for companies which are, perhaps, more suited for touring, for reasons of unsuitable accommodation, about which we have heard this morning. But when they tour, we who live at a distance have a responsibility. It was my pleasure to attend the National Theatre nightly in Aberdeen last year. The theatre was half empty and I could leave my meeting and walk straight in. That was the National Theatre in Aberdeen a year ago. So when we put our great National Theatre Company on tour we have to impress on the places to which it goes the important link that they can provide by their audience.
This is a great project which I am happy to support today.

12.5 p.m.

Miss Jennie Lee: I am grateful to the Committee for the unanimity of its support. It is doubly appreciated, because everyone who has contributed to the discussion has contributed with an obvious background not only of love for the theatre but of knowledge in many specialised spheres.
We all want to know the opening date. We hope to have the tender accepted and awarded this spring, and that actual work will begin before the end of this year, and that we can look forward to an opening date in 1973. Like everyone else, I protested most loudly. I got into this honourable conspiracy with Lord Chandos on many things. We do not tell people everything. I asked whether there was some way of shortening the period. The Board and everyone concerned are anxious that there should not be a single minute lost and that we shall make maximum speed.
I am in sympathy with the point made about having a penalty Clause, although it is not for me to intervene in that kind of matter. I was impressed by the fact that immediately after the Second World War, when there was a shortage of bricks, cement, and everything else, the Festival Hall was built in two years. There was a


penalty clause in that contract, so it was in the contractor's interest to get ahead as soon as possible.
On timing, we are in complete accord for every possible reason. We know that we can go ahead. We hope that before the end of this year, 1969, a start will have been made, and we must all hope that we may be pleasantly surprised and that 1973 is a conservative estimate. All concerned will have our total support in having an opening date sooner, if possible.
I now come to costs. So far £190,000 has been spent. By the end of 1968–69 the expenditure will probably total about £250,000. The rate of expenditure will move in this way: 1969–70, £440,000; 1970–71, £690,000; 1971–72, £910,000; 1972–73, £900,000; 1973–74, £510,000. Some of those figures may have to be slightly revised, but those are the figures which have been given to me. We want this project to be built, if possible, within the figure which we are agreeing. We must do everything in our power to see that there is no delay in the building, no loose ends, no wastages and no needless extravagance.
I share the regret of others that there is not to be this third experimental theatre. I take a little comfort from the fact that although there will not be a restaurant straightaway, space for it is being provided.
I was impressed by the case put forward by the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir Clive Bossom). I, too, would have liked a museum included. All we can do is to go ahead at the maximum speed with what is possible at the moment, hoping and believing that there will not only be the will but the surrounding space and possibility for a museum, cinema and all the rest to follow.
Concerning transport, we shall have parking space for 425 cars, with 160 directly for the theatre. There will be more general parking space for the museum and galleries on the South Bank.
I should like to take this opportunity to give a salesman's talk about a project which will come in the near future. I have always said that we will not really completely democratise our great new galleries and theatres on the South

Bank till we have transport, not only in the form of cars and buses, but in the shape of a great covered travellator across the Thames.
I have many friends now in the Greater London Council and the Government who share this view. We should be able to go from one side to the other out of the wind and rain. At the moment it is an obstacle race to get there. I am fortunate, being a Minister, in having a car for travel on official occasions. It is difficult enough to get away sometimes even in these circumstances. Without a car it would be almost impossible. I was astonished and touched when I went to the Festival Hall on Friday night to hear the great Scottish Orchestra. I did not believe that anyone but myself could get there—or a handful of us who had special help with transport. It was wonderful to see the enthusiasm of the numbers of people who, through every difficulty, had got there. We must consider lame people, for instance, or the young man taking out his best girl with a new hair-do for the occasion. Transport is vital. We should not make an evening's enjoyment so often such a squalid obstacle race as it now is in getting to the other side of the river.
The hon. Member for Leominster also made a cri de coeur about the comfort of the seats. I think that this has been taken care of. There will also be special provision for invalid chairs. There will be a certain number of seats situated where access to them is easier, so that people can be helped in that way.
An important point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) and by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls). While they are totally in support of going ahead with the National Theatre, they suggested that we must be very careful that new developments do not take place in an atmosphere of decay in the old commercial theatres and in many of the regions generally. The Arts Council is hard at work. It has set up a committee and has allocated a certain amount of funds. We believe that there will be a get-together between money from the private and commercial sector and public money in order to build up a scheme by which the State subsidised theatres and


the commercial theatres can be complementary and mutually helpful. But we are still awaiting a report. It would be wrong for me to indicate the lines along which the Arts Council is working. But hon. Members have made a point of the greatest substance.
While we have to go ahead with theatres of first-class status in Scotland and Wales—Wales already has plans for a National Theatre; Scotland has not, but it is forging ahead with its opera plan—I can assure hon. Members who have expressed special concern for Scotland, Wales and Wolverhampton, or wherever it may be, that the National Theatre will truly be a National Theatre. What we are spending on this project will not in the long run deduct from what we are spending in the regions. When we create a climate of opinion in which people are willing to spend in the one sphere, it becomes an added stimulus in the other. Indeed, hon. Members may like to know that the total in 1966–67 for drama outside London amounted to £1·6 million, the following year to £2 million, and this year to about £2·2 million. This includes about £250,000 for the National Theatre. In addition, capital grants and promises of grants have been made to 31 projects totalling about £1·1 million. This is encouraging renovation of theatres and the adaptation of old buildings and the rest. Nothing is going ahead as fast as we might like, but I think that hon. Members know of the concern that is being shown to keep a true balance between the needs of the capital city and the rest of the country.
I also, like my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, pay tribute not only to the leaders in the theatre but to the young. It is moving to see the dedication of young people before they become great ballet dancers or great dramatists. I thought that I knew their lives, but I have learned a great deal in the last few years. They give so much of themselves and they ask so little. We should endeavour to give them the better buildings which they so very much need. Keeping in mind how not to break the heart of the most talented of our young, we must give them more support than we are now doing, making every allowance for the fact that it is more than in the past.
I am not going to follow the slightly dangerous line of the hon. Member for the Southend, West (Mr. Channon).

Mr. Channon: It is very slight.

Miss Lee: I agree. There are no recriminations about the fact that we are 20 years on. There are no recriminations about time lost. It is very much better to look forward than to look back, and I am sure that that is the mood of the Committee.
I have made a number of notes, and I want to make sure that I have not failed to reply to any of the substantial and important matters which were raised. I was asked about the future of the Old Vic. This will be decided by the trustees, but they will do it in consultation with the Arts Council. The matter has not been settled. We know who they are, and we know their interests. It is probable that the matter will be decided in about 1973. Till then the Old Vic will continue to be very much loved, and to make a real contribution in some form or another.
I was asked whether £7½ million would be enough. May we allow that question to lie upon the table? We must do all in our power to ensure that it is enough. To the Arts Council we have added Lord Goodman, an adroit businessman, and a man of great sensitivity. There is also Sir Joseph Lockwood. If he can run E.M.I, he may be able to make a contribution here. We have representatives from the G.L.C., and from the Department. A formidable Board is in control, and I am sure that we can safely leave these matters in their hands. They in turn will be encouraged by the fact that we are so eager for their speedy success.
It is not for the likes of me to interfere with the priorities of the Scottish Arts Council as to what it does with its money. I shall be happy to provide what help I can in getting that Council more than it has had in the past, but I shall not discuss Scottish priorities for burgh collections.
One matter bordering on controversy is that of the degree of freedom to be allowed in the theatre. It is so difficult to decide what is good taste. It may be easier to decide what is freedom. I believe that it is better to take the risk of having a permissive theatre than to have


an authoritarian one. Artists cannot work in a politically-controlled atmosphere.
I conclude by thanking all hon. Members for their work in the Committee this morning, and by thanking you, Mr. Robertson for helping me so much. I thank hon. Members for the immense amount of knowledge as well as good will which has been contributed to our discussion today.

Question put and agreed to.

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:


Robertson, Mr. John (Chairman)
Mitchell, Mr. R. C.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Channon, Mr.
Price, Mr. Christopher


Concannon, Mr.
Royle, Mr. A.


Davies, Mr. G. Elfed
St. John-Stevas, Mr.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Short, Mrs. Renée


Lee, Miss Jennie
Whitaker, Mr.


Maydon, Lieut.-Commander

Ordered,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the National Theatre Bill ought to be read a Second time.

The Chairman: I should like to thank the Committee for making my job an easy one on this my debut in the Chair. I hope that in future it will be just as easy.

Committee rose at nineteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.